Larry Bolch

I have run across an Internet myth a few times that says polariod filters have some magic quality that improves all photographs and should be left on the lens all the time. Nothing could be much less true.

The polarizing filter is a very special purpose solution to a limited number of photographic problems. Unless used with skill and knowledge, it can ruin far more images than it enhances. It has two functions—to control reflections from non-metallic surfaces and to block polarized light. In the first case, the sparkle of sunlight on water, flower petals or paint enlivens the image. Without them, the subject matter can look matte and dull. However, when used with skill, polarizer filters can help saturate the colours. Photographed at a 35° angle to the glass, reflections can be largely eliminated looking like the glass was removed from the window. Great to reveal window display design but it can also look like the building was vandalised. It can also reveal fish in a pond, but used to excess, the fish will appear to be floating in the air, specially if the surface of the water is quite still. Finally if used on a wide-angle lens on a cross-lit scene, it can show a very dark spot in the sky with a wide gradient fall off. When shooting transparency film, one had no control over the image in processing. One spent a small fortune on time, film and processing to learn how to use it effectively. If one was shooting for publication, it was an absolutely essential tool. It may not have been an ideal solution, but it was the ONLY solution. Shooting RAW and processing with layers, one has vastly more control and an Undo function. Used as a neutral density filter, it is double the price of an actual ND filter and is capable of ruining any image unless you are extremely vigilant.

With the extreme complexity of digital cameras, it would be nearly impossible and certainly impractical to try to bring a counterfeit model to market. The cost of building a fake camera would likely far exceed that of the maker's original since the original manufacturer can buy parts in large quantities. Highly specialised equipment is also used in manufacturing cameras that would be impossible for a counterfeiter to obtain. There are, however "grey market" cameras. Cameras vary in price from country to country, and stores will buy from countries where the price is low and sell in countries where the price is high. The downside is usually no warranty and even the possibility of not being able to obtain repairs at all. Legitimate camera sellers like B&H in New York City, USA clearly identify these cameras on their website and offer their own guarantees. They do have a highly informative page clearly explaining the issues. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/HelpCenter/Policies.jsp?origSearch=gray%2520market#greyMarket Of course, it could be legit. The seller appears to have a very good rating.

As you may have taken a hint from above, there is nothing geographically specific about any lens. On my last trip (Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks) I carried everything from a fisheye, an 114° 14mm full-frame lens to an 83× zoom with a maximum field of view equal to a 2000mm lens. All were used to the max. My X-Pro1 had the 8mm Samyang fisheye, 14mm, 18mm, 35mm and 60mm. Whatever you have, will be useful.

No. Large sensors were very difficult to make, with tiny yields. The Nikon D3 caught the world by surprise when it showed up with a full-frame sensor just about ten years ago. Contax had tried for years to bring a full-frame camera to market, showing it at trade-shows, but never getting into the channel. Finally, Kyocera grew frustrated and killed the whole company. Kodak also produced a full-frame camera that was in most ways a disaster. The D3 represented a true watershed, however, it was initially priced at $5,000US. The problems were far greater on the medium-format side. Early backs acted like scanners, making three passes to create a full-colour image. Of course, any subject movement doomed the exposure. Early one-shot backs used CCD technology, low sensitivity, heat and all the associated problems. Sensors larger than full frame were extremely expensive. Realize that prior to 2014 there were NO medium-format digital cameras with CMOS sensors. So far, no fab has been able to deliver a full 645 sensor, much less a 6×6. At the moment, Phase One offers a 53.7 × 40.4 mm sensor—to the best of my knowledge the largest in the industry. With a normal lens, the camera retails for just under $50,000US. If that is your idea of cheap, then you have a degree of envy. 6×6 though vastly popular among film shooters was initially a compromise for camera makers who build cameras with waist-level finders. A square format allowed cropping to either vertical or horizontal format without awkward callisthenics with the camera. While one could shoot a full square format, it usually resulted in being yelled at by the editor(a number of times in my case). With live view monitors, I never expect to see a 6×6 sensor. I would not be so bold as to assert that sensors are now at their maximum size, I don't expect to see a sensor larger than a 645 in anything like the near future. Image quality drives the demand, and current medium format digital sensors are delivering quality comparable to large format film. If in the future, it will be possible to produce a 6×7 gigapixel sensor, I would expect to see them in spy satellites, not commercial cameras.

One slight problem. Where would you source this 6×6 sensor? Phase One has one of the largest sensors at 53.7 × 40.4 mm and Hasselblad at 53.4 x 40.0. Both are 100MP parts. Neither one is even a full 645 format, and much less than 6×6. The term "affordable" is generally not used when describing either. Considering the quality of these sensors, we may never see film sized 6×6+ sized sensors. Shift adapter has been available for some time. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1327314-REG/cambo_99010882_actus_camerabody_with_fuji_gfx.html/?gclid=CjwKEAjw387JBRDPtJePvOej8kASJADkV9TL9qCy1qR5d8SBp2Z9PtcaHPG9aPZFdUMWXDImQcTeGRoCIz3w_wcB There have been many reports of success with adapted Nikon and Canon tilt-shift lenses as well. They have an ample circle of coverage that is sufficient without vignetting.

One of the best landscapes of the past year, I shot with a 200mm equivalent focal length. Very dramatic mountain against storm clouds. On the other hand, I love photographing prairie with superwide lenses, emphasising the vastness. For landscape features, any focal length between the two. I often shoot panoramas with lenses around 100mm and stitch them together. Very high pixel count and extremely high detail. The 35mm with its extreme sharpness works extremely well with both in-camera stitching and stitching in processing. I am a great fan of OIS since much of my shooting is done in available darkness or extreme focal lengths. However, I accept it is a very limited solution to a fairly rare range of problems. With my X-Pro1 and X100, I am shooting primes exclusively. My subjects are almost all people living their lives. OIS with the Fuji cameras would be no advantage at all. I have learned to hand-hold with sufficient steadiness to ensure sharp results. Lean against walls, rest your elbows on a table or chair back. Crank the ISO up to whatever is needed. A bit of noise trumps satin blurs every time. No matter how smooth, with no detail, your image is ruined. Just as learning to steer a bike so you don't end up in the canal, learning to hold a camera steady is one of the fundamentals to be practised and learned. It is fundamental to all photography. With practice, you find out how slow a shutter speed you can risk with any given focal length. For APS-C cameras, a person in prime condition may be able to use the 1/1.5×focal length rule of thumb. It would say that the lowest shutter speed for the 35mm lens would be 1/52.5th of a second—1/60th in the real world. Shorter exposures are generally preferable. Wide apertures and high ISO ratings provide these goodies. Keep an eye on your results and change your workflow to suit. It is no more difficult to become a musician on a new instrument than to be a photographer fluent with a new camera. Nor is it easier. In both cases, study and practice wins the day. We are not born with the skills and knowledge, but we can learn and practice.

Unless you are shooting in the pits and garages, using zone focusing on the track saves a whole lot of headaches. (Covered all motorsports for a decade and a half.) At the distance to where you are allowed to work, depth of field is at its max. Depending upon the lens, set it at f/5.6-f/11 for maximum sharpness, manually focus on the racing line and then just shoot. Depth-of-field keeps you covered, and the lens never needs to hunt. You can put all your attention on capturing the moment, not worrying about the camera.

No definitive answer, but you may weigh my opinions against your own. The neat thing is that whatever you choose, you know you are buying a premium quality lens. The lower priced lenses, of course, involve compromise but optical quality is not compromised. "Small dark clubs" screams for an f/1.4—I have the 35mm and regularly get blown away by how sharp it is wide open when shooting in available darkness. You have the f/2.0 23mm so an f/1.4 would be redundant. I have not used it, but I read much praise of the 16mm also at f/1.4. It would give you enormous capability at the wide end. I am a big fan of the 60mm as a general purpose medium telephoto. The close-up feature is a big bonus. However, there would be a degree of redundancy with your 56mm. It serves my needs so well, that I have never considered the 56mm. No experience with the 27mm, but it achieves its low price via being f/2.8 and skipping the aperture ring. I understand from reviews that it is very sharp. The difference in focal length between it and your 23mm lens is really not significant. Again a degree of redundancy. I shoot primes on my X-Pro1, so don't have experience with zoom Fujinons. However, I do have zooms on other cameras and the 18-135mm would be an excellent choice for travel simplicity. Great for working outdoors, a bit slow for available darkness. However, Fuji noise is quite pleasant and worth shooting at higher ISO settings if it means getting the image or not. Fuji claims a five stop image stabilisation capability, which would help a bunch in low light.

Sigh... The ever recurring thread. It will go on endlessly between those who view images on a pixel level vs those who view images normally. The pixel peepers will become personal and abusive and the photographers will respond in kind. Pixel peepers will fight among themselves over alternate software, each promoting their favourite, with contempt for the others who don't see the difference. As the thread finally winds down, someone else will blame Lightwave for waxy skin and it will begin all over again. <sigh>"Sigh"</sigh>

I habitually scan the top of the camera as I pick it up—a good habit to develop. Secondly, do a test shot of the venue to see what adjustments may be needed. When shooting conditions change, another test shot and new adjustments if needed. Make it part of you. If you were shooting RAW all may not be lost. Fuji exposures are quite forgiving when underexposed.

Hopeless to get a definitive answer. It is not about geographically specific demands upon lenses, but rather the focal lengths you yourself find comfortable in a given photographic situation. There are no wide-angle countries, no telephoto countries nor any 18-55mm specific countries. Wherever you go, you will find narrow alleyways and broad plazas. Flowers native to the region photograph no differently from those outside your door. Superwide lenses can make some sweeping vistas seem vast, but a panorama shot with a normal lens will capture even more. On the other hand, a telephoto can strongly emphasise a unique landscape feature. A lens that works well on a tall person will work fine on a shorter person. A bird is a bird, and photographs about the same no matter where you find it. I love travel photography and I could post an inventory of my kit on the most recent trip. It would do you no good. I used everything from a fisheye to the equivalent of a 2,000mm on a bridge camera. It is very unlikely that we work and see identically, so even if I posted along with examples and expressed my reasons for lens choice, they would not necessarily resonate with you at all. Even though it was a journey through the Rocky Mountains and I live in a rather flat city, what I used there is what I use here. Your eye and your workflow dictate the lenses—not the destination.

A 15-minute take (unedited) would be beyond annoying, it would be close to cruel and unusual punishment. Turn on your TV to a random show. Notice that whether it is news, sports, drama, reality, talking heads, documentary, whatever… they are all made up of cuts with few going over 10 seconds. Back in the days of 8mm home movie cameras, cartoonists had a field day with people trying to squirm out of home movie nights. Now everyone has a TV and it is not unusual to have it on for many hours a day. This is the standard by which you are judged. Even the lowest budget cable time-filler is well shot with even lighting, steady camera moves, and edited from short takes.

Video is a free feature. It has been around since the dawning of the digital camera era. Every camera with LiveView has a video feed, and firmware and software development costs were paid off long ago. However, not every camera is ideal for video use, and most still photographers lack the necessary skills to do watchable video well. The camcorder is alive and well. Yes, 4k is here and it has been here for quite a while. I did virtual sets for a cable science show back in 2010 and we were working in 4k back then. However, we had access to a 4k video editing suite along with green-screen studio and 4k video cameras—and most importantly—professional staff. I wonder what percentage of people who bought a still camera with 4k being a major deal-maker, have actually finished their second project? I expect that a lot of first projects get shuffled to the back burner unfinished. Making watchable video is skill intensive and a LOT of work. Compared to 1080 HD, 4k needs four times the resources—storage in camera and on drives, RAM and CPU, video card and above all, a 4k monitor. When it arrives, 8k will double that. Of course, if you are shooting for network or theatrical release, you can hire the skills and the hardware costs are trivial compared to the overall production budget. Whether shot 4k or 8k, most enthusiast video will be viewed on standard 1920×1080 HD screens because that is what people have.

It takes time to update and distribute software. The last Windows update to Photoshop CC included the GFX 50S and the rest of the latest models. They had the software ready to go by the time the cameras were in the shops, or very shortly afterward. Smaller developers will probably soon follow. In the past, it took them months before they were successful in de-mosaicing the X-Pro1 and the first X-Trans. Now they are quite prompt. As far as long term, I started shooting digital cameras at the beginning of the century, and all my earliest files not only work fine but take full advantage of all the new features in Adobe Camera RAW. Absolutely no reason why RAW image files from all cameras should not remain forever readable.

Just to confuse things further, add the 60mm f/2.4 to the mix. A lovely all-around short telephoto, extremely sharp with focusing down to 1:2. Highly praised for out-of-focus rendering though not as capable of focusing on the eye with the eyebrow out of focus if that is important to you. I prefer both eyes and the nose in focus. Light-weight and inexpensive. I personally like its 90mm equivalent focal length as my ideal for face shots. With its close focusing to infinity range, it was criticized on the X-Pro1. That was fixed with a firmware upgrade, though it still has to deal with the extreme focus range and may be a trifle slower than ordinary lenses.

Highly unlikely. While a new file format may take a while to be coded into existing programs, pretty much any digital file since the era of mainframes are still readable. Prior to that storage was enormously expensive, and tapes were routinely erased and reused. Much historic data from early space exploration has been forever lost. That is not the case today. Digital files do not degenerate and code is forever. Need to view a rare Amiga HAM image file from 1985? The format is well documented, and there are applications that can still access it. In mainframe days, data formats were proprietary oft-times, thus hard to access. Not so now. Local storage is trivial in price, and cloud storage readily available. To preserve your RAF files means keeping a level of redundancy—as in backups. With countless thousands of files being generated daily, even if the format is later abandoned, the code to decipher them will live on through everything short of a global meltdown. JPEGs have only a fraction of the data contained in a RAF. They are a convenience, being small can be transmitted quickly. They are more than adequate as a display format. No harm in shooting RAW+JPEG or having some batch processing application generate a set. A nice supplement to RAW, but no substitute. RAW is not actually an image file format, but rather the raw data off your sensor plus information on your camera settings and information on how to interpret it. It is primarily where you start producing the final image be it a JPEG to be embedded in a web page, used in a slide show or made into a print. It is truly your original and should be carefully preserved. Not a software problem. However, optical discs can shatter and hard drives crash. Obscure formats are accessible, but not if the hardware fails and you don't have backups.

Fuji very small? Where on earth did you get THAT idea? They are much larger and currently more prosperous than Nikon. Fujifilm Revenue ¥ 2492.6 billion (2015) Net income ¥ 137.1 billion (¥118.6 attributable to FUJIFILM Holdings) (2015) Number of employees 79,235 (consolidated, as of March 31, 2015) Nikon Revenue Decrease ¥857.8 billion (FY2015) Operating income Decrease ¥43.4 billion (FY2015) Net income Decrease ¥18.4 billion (FY2015) Number of employees 25,415 (March 31, 2015) Cottage to corporate? When the disruptive digital image technology hit, both Kodak and Fujifilm were huge players. Kodak failed, Fujifilm diversified and prospered. Fuji has now been in business for 83 years. You may not have noticed them as an equipment supplier since they only recently discovered the consumer marketplace. On the industrial level where they have long been a highly respected supplier, they produced superb lenses for large and medium format film cameras. The Fuji GX680 was by far the most flexible medium-format film single-lens reflex both in design and with the superb line of Fujinon lenses. They also had a line of medium format rangefinder cameras that were legendary for ease of use and high quality. The Fujifilm GX645AF medium-format was rebranded by Hasselblad as their H1. To this day current Hasselblad H6D cameras shoot with rebranded Fujinon lenses and they will all work with the GFX adapter with fully functional leaf shutter sync. Lest you too think they are too small to support both an APS-C and a medium-format line of lenses without one line suffering, check out their line of video production glass. B&H lists 87 lenses from which to choose with $3,900US at the entry level, all the way to $233,490.00 for a single lens!! Turn on your TV and chances are you are seeing through a Fujinon. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ipp=100&Ns=p_PRICE_2%7c1&ci=1884&N=3908282152+4291437653&setIPP=100&srtclk=itemspp Add to this a dozen ciné lenses ranging from the just announced MK 18-55mm T2.0 for $3,800US up to just pocket change less than $100k for their Fujinon 14.5-45mm T2.0 Premier PL Zoom Lens. Fujifilm is neither a small company nor are they struggling. In just a short five years they have been able to produce a well-balanced set of high-quality still-camera lenses pretty much on par with their industrial products. No pity needed, they are doing fine.

In the few years since their inception, X-cameras have used the same sensor from the bottom of the line X-Trans to the top. They have used features and body design to differentiate their levels of product. To say that a $1,700US camera and a $6,500 camera will have any impact upon sales of each other is absurd. They are vastly different cameras and aimed at vastly different photographers. While the GFX offers the X-camera photographer a shorter learning curve with the same user interface, they are in no way competitive but rather complimentary.

If you are working at any of the tasks that Fuji defined as their target market, you probably have either education or work experience to be able to do the job. While I have not met anyone who got wealthy in the career, I have known a number of people who earned a good and steady living well away from major centres of production.

According to the press release: "The entire “MK” series is designed with the ‘emerging’ cinematographer in mind, whether shooting a live event, online programming, documentary, corporate video, wedding, independent or short film production." pretty much defines the target market. And no, this does not indicate a mass migration from Arri, RED and others. Where the demand warrants it, they will most certainly continue to be used. Those in the above categories may simply not have the budget for higher end equipment, and the X-T2 plus MK lens will do the job to the client's expectations and within the budget. A lot of people make a decent living serving these markets even though they may go unnoticed by the general public, weddings excluded. These are working professionals, not soccer-moms trying to film junior's whole game. A ten minute take from a single viewpoint would be paralytically boring to the point of ending the ‘emerging’ cinematographer's career. Watch this kind of product, and you will see an ever-changing viewpoint with clips just seconds long. Even with live sports or events, there is constant cutting from camera to camera. Cinematography 101. There are endless examples on the web to verify this or simply turn on the TV. In real-world video making, takes are in seconds, not minutes. Fuji sees a new market opening up, and has designed two lenses to serve it. The X-T2 is getting respect from the potential customers for such a system. If the market continues to grow, Fujifilm might well decide to use the core technology of the X-T3 or X-T4 to offer a dedicated cine body. This is just step one in what might eventually become a quite profitable new line. Only the iPhone generation camps on a single viewpoint, single focal length and expects it to be watched. This is not Fuji's target customer.

Fuji has long made video lenses on the industrial level. B&H in NYC shows 87 different lenses from $3,900 to $233,490.00 in their pro-video site. Highly affordable if you are buying for a major network or even for a cable news station. These appear to instead target independent producers, which may be growing market. From the press release: "The entire “MK” series is designed with the ‘emerging’ cinematographer in mind, whether shooting a live event, online programming, documentary, corporate video, wedding, independent or short film production." The current X-T2 seems to have nailed 4K video, and these lenses would eliminate the potential problems of using lenses designed for still photography. Again to quote Fuji: "Our MK’s have a seamless manual iris, zero breathing, no ramping or zoom shift, and 200-degree focus rotation. They maintain focus completely throughout the zoom range while covering Super 35mm sensors.” I see it as step one in futureproofing and expanding the X-camera into a broader and more versatile system. Kodak died because it could not get past the idea that it was a film company. Fujifilm prospered by vastly diversifying its product line.

Are you asking if the GFX lenses will crowd the X-mount lenses out, or at least slow down development of new lenses? Realise that still camera lenses are just a small part of the extensive range of lenses made by Fujinon. This includes the Hasselblad branded lenses that were initially developed for the Fujifilm GX645AF, which was rebranded as the Hasselblad H1. This gives the GFX a ready to use lineup of lenses with shutters to work with the announced adapter. At this moment B&H Photovideo in NYC is showing 87 individual video Fujinons ranging in price from an entry level of $3,900US to a high end $233,490.00 for a single lens. Turn on your TV and chances are great whether it is a daytime drama or the biggest game of the season, you are probably seeing what a Fujinon is capturing. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ns=p_POPULARITY%7c1&ci=1884&setNs=p_POPULARITY%7c1&N=3908282152+4291437653&srtclk=sort Add in nine ciné lenses from $16k to just short of $100k and 28 industrial lenses. All that from a single store. From an initial three lenses—a typical photojournalist's kit—in five years Fuji has covered much of the range of focal lengths and types that the big two have had more than half a century to produce. Just sticking with Fujinons, not many photographic specialities are excluded. Plus third party lenses have come on strong to fill out the lines. Again checking B&H, they have 93 lenses for sale in the X-Mount at the moment. It seems to me, that we have little to worry about.

ACR is in both Lightroom and Photoshop.To the best of my knowledge, they function identically. They function as a RAW to bitmap converter with a rich feature set.

Perhaps not that far in the future. You can currently buy one from either PhaseOne or Hasselblad. As with all things digital, Gordon Moore's "Law" applies to some extent. Fujifilm stated that they current medium format lenses would equal or exceed the resolution of a 100MP sensor.