Max_Elmar

It's buried in my X-E2 manual V4.00 (EN p. 123), but connection instructions for Instax printers are there. There is note that says "The area printed is smaller than the area visible in the LCD monitor." Which means there is a mandatory crop and you can't control it. No exposure/color controls. No templates. Good to know it can be done, but I think I'd rather use my phone or iPad to edit before printing.

Agree with above. Rent them to try them. Personally I find a small DSLR to be better for "active" toddlers - and toddlers sometimes grow up to play sports.... But the X-E2 for travel and family trips, concerts, plays - in short everything else. I would not dump the Canon until you are sure.

I was thinking of this one with the hoods, Milandro. (Towards the bottom) http://www.fujirumors.com/capture-one-worst-option-fujfilm-x-cameras-fuji-photo-nytimes-instagram-mixed-zone/ Looks like bare metal to me. (Sandpaper?) Couldn't find much info on the camera.

Cool! Anyone see any custom paint Fuji X? The X-Pro1 with paint removed looks interesting. (See a few days ago on this site.)

The manual says 60 minutes on Bulb. Setting aperture to "A" forces 30 seconds. So try a manual aperture setting. (FW4.0 p. 50)

A lot of "fun" little changes in the latest LR update that will bite you if you have everything memorized as it is (was). Like moving "perspective corrections" from "Lens Corrections" to a new menu - "Transform." It's my job, and it will be for the near future, but at least I'm done with it at home.

Yeah, 50mm on APS-C is not really close to 85 or 90... try 75mm FOV. I'm sure it will be a nice lens and all, but if you are used to the 60 (or even the 56), you will certainly notice the difference.

One of disturbing things one must accept in the digital age of photography is that cards simply go bad and throw random errors. They will fail without warning, without apparent reason, and usually at the worst possible moment - during a shoot who they are filled with irreplaceable images. This is your lucky day. This is the warning one usually does not get. Do yourself a favor. Take the card, put a big red question mark on it in red sharpie marker, and put it in your bag to use only as an emergency spare.

The methodology looks pretty reasonable to me (with caveats - see below). In this implementation it would seem ES is kind of gimmicky with limited use. (Which maybe we should already know, because the tech would have driven MS out a long time ago?) File it under "mostly marketing" along with "World Fastest Autofocus." I guess it is possible that the actual speed is some multiple of 1/15 (or fraction of .07) and that the bars are artifacts of the interaction of the flashing rate and the scanning speed. Just because the Adruino is set to flash at 100hz doesn't necessarily mean that that's what is actually happening with the LEDs. There is probably a switching power supply and/or an LED driver circuit in the mix. I would want to measure what was really going on with a fast light sensor and an oscilloscope to confirm the setup. My guess for the fuji sensor would have been 120-240hz not 15hz. But, the slow scan speed is consistent with some of the weird artifacts I've seen.

Watch out for the older Viv 283 - I had one that put nearly 400v. One time I used it in a handle grip at an event and it put the voltage right through my face to the camera (Koni-Omega 6x7 RF). Bad PC cord. Crazy!

It's crisp, sharp, and super-detailed, that's for sure. That appeals to me as a photographer. As a railfan, I feel it needs a little more context to be really interesting. Some railfans really dislike photos that feature tagging - I'm not one of those - but there is nothing that distinctive about this tagging that it can carry the photo. Including a nearby building, a signal, a locomotive, a crew person (the tagger?), or an interesting pattern in the nearby trackage would help a lot. Things that can move are usually more interesting when moving.

That's great but hasn't Sigma raised the bar on "premium" APS-C zooms with their stabilized F1.8 18-35mm and 50-150mm? How about a stabilized F1.8 10-20mm?

Ken is a goofball, but he puts a good bit of info out there and it can be useful info. The reviews themselves border on clickbait. Entertaining, perhaps. Hey, it's his opinion and he's entitled to it. Before you give any weight to his evaluation of color, go look at his work and you'll understand where he's coming from. I would describe it as lurid. Or exaggerated. Perhaps bat-shit crazy. Maybe that look sells in SoCal. I actually like it sometimes, but generally not my thing. But there is good info in there when it can be separated from the clickbait in which it is embedded.

A few months ago, it was very difficult to find X-T1 bodies on Ebay. Now there is a bunch. As a matter of fact it's pretty easy to find any 16mp Fuji body for a reasonable price. Lenses, too. People are selling things to get those X-Pro2 bodies! Good times for all!

Hm. Let's take a closer look at that one shall we? Yes, the D500 is lacking a few compact wide-angle lenses. But the D500 can use the new Sigma 1.8 zooms. (Or any other Sigma for that matter.) And the Zeiss stuff. And all the exotic long glass, macro glass, specialized glass that Nikon makes or ever made. And you can rent any of those that you can't afford to buy. Sorry, love my Fuji gear, but I had to reality check that one. People who seriously need/want a D500 aren't really that worried there's no 18/2 DX pancake available for it... but rent a 400/2.8 and go birding? Oh, yeah - you just can't do that with any Fuji... yet. Until you can - and until ANY mirrorless camera can focus and track a moving target as well as a D500 or a D5 (or the Canon equivalents) - I'll be sporting an F mount in the big bag with my XF mount in the little one. Both are wonderful tools to have.

I'm probably the very last person in the world to figure it out but I was very happy to find that Adobe color/camera profiles (.dcp) and lens correction profiles (.lcp) seem to work great in Iridient Developer. I downloaded the Classic Chrome profile for the X-E1 from this forum and it did a pretty good job giving me that film simulation. I used the Adobe Lens Profile Downloader to download a correction profile for the Rokinon 12mm F2 which also worked quite well! (This particular profile corrected distortion - I still had to correct chromatic aberration manually.) Iridient Developer isn't the best documented or widely used bit of software out there, so I thought I'd mention it in case others were wondering. This is almost as good as when I found that the metal hood from the 35/1.4 fits the 60/2.4 - the 60 handles very nicely that way! The native hood for the 60 is very impressive but a bit of overkill in my estimation. (Note: I have no commercial interest in Iridient Digital.) Regards, Max_Elmar

Yes - manual focus is very useable. Tap the rear command wheel for an enlarged view. Much more accurate and repeatable than a DSLR (live view excepted). Just not quite as nice as the X-E2...

Hi Yoan- The X-E1 is still very useable but if you try a a later body, you will want one. The IQ is the same, but everything else about the X-E2 is newer, better, and faster. I kept my X-E1 as a back up body. Running FW 2.4, which was the last FW update that added functionality. No colors for focus peaking. No classic chrome film simulation (which is the only color film sim I really like.) Slower refresh on the EVF - quite choppy in dim light. AF doesn't really bother me. Still using DSLR for action/sport. I started with the original 3 XF lenses, the 18/2, 35/1.4, and 60/2.4 - all three are very good to great lenses to this day and the trio can handle most tasks quite well. I got the 18-55 to have a stabilized lens. It's an excellent zoom, I use it a lot for travel and events - still prefer the primes when the situation allows. I got a Rokinon 12/2, which is an outstanding value. It's sharper, faster, with less coma and distortion than anything else in the range, even the Zeiss. But it has CA - which the camera (or a good RAW converter) deals with pretty well. The XC 55-230 is another great value - especially for travel, as it is nice and light and small - so I often bring it - and t's pretty sharp - happy with the results. Waiting patiently for (what I hope will be) the 23/2 WR. Will get the 23/1.4 if the WR is just a rumor or if it doesn't perform. Would love to have the 90/2 and maybe the 14/2.8 - both are nearly perfect lenses, as far as I can tell. Everyone lusts after the 56/1.2 or uses an old 50/1.8 on an adapter for portrait lens but I find the 60 to be wonderful for portraits or light macro. Beautiful bokeh - and decently sharp right across the frame, even wide open. It's great that the Fuji works well with adapted lenses - and and I have tried more than a few - but iI haven't found one to out perform any of the native lenses. I don't own any $$$$ Leica lenses to try - so I can't say absolutely. It's a great system. Regards, Max_Elmar

I got into the Fuji system because of this lens. To this day Nikon does not offer a fast, compact 28mm DX equivalent. (I have been waiting since 2004. The upcoming DL is camera, not a lens.) This is a wonderful little lens, especially for PJ, or street style shooting. That a long-winded way of saying it's quite sharp in the middle at any aperture. It focuses very quickly, if not super quietly. People who say the zoom is better are just plain wrong. (That's OK with me, it help keeps the price down.) I've seen the measurements to confirm it. In the RAW files the 18/2 is sharper than the 18-55 in the middle and at the edges at F2.8 (of course the 18/2 isn't stabilized so quick, hand-held comparison shots will not reveal this.) This not to say either one is a bad lens - but for low light - photographing humans @ F2 & 2.8 - the little 18 gets the nod. For more typical shooting, it's hard to beat the stabilized 18-55.

Actually, there is a TON of data processing going on in a DSLR, but much of the data is coming from a (comparatively) huge, dedicated PDAF sensor array (not a few masked pixels on an imaging sensor). This combination is exceptionally good at reading and even anticipating subject movement but not quite as good as "mirrorless" CD systems focus accuracy and repeatability. The two systems will eventually converge (some convergence has already happened) but I suspect the camera with a dedicated PDAF sensor will always have the upper hand for random movement. That's provided that all the mechanical systems that are in a DSLR are in perfect alignment - but of course they rarely are! (Well, less often than one might think!)

Yeah, about that. I go back to DSLR to anytime I shoot something that actually moves or when I need more than a paltry 300 shots per battery on a big day (if you're lucky). Yeah, - then you buy the crappiest Nikon and declare all DSLRs inferior... hmmmmm. Whatevs....

With FW 4.0, my list is getting pretty short. New sensor is essential and a joystick would be nice. Dual SD card slots, UHS2 please. Compressed RAF files (optional), please. More weather seals, yes! Tilting screen would be nice if possible within the form factor. I feel the touchscreen and the locking ISO dial are unnecessary - but I wouldn't turn them down...

I'm not sure it really matters how you characterize this particular type of failure, but I have learned that if you buy cheap junk, it will probably fail on you, in the worst way, at the worst time. If you are insulated from these sorts of problems by wealth or attitude, don't worry about it. If your work matters and you care, don't skimp on tools - it's false economy.

I can't compare Capture One because I haven't used it, but Iridient has been a pleasure to use with my Fuji files. It's fantastic with my Nikon files as well. Although I work in an all-Adobe shop, at home I feel the subscription model doesn't work for me, so I have dropped most Adobe software. My workflow with Irridient is a little slower but the quality is better. Adobe has (perhaps) closed the gap in recent releases, but Iridient still has a slight edge. Most times I simply convert to JPEG. When I really need to work with an image to bring out the best I use IR to convert a Fuji RAF to a 16bit TIFF - and wow - what a pleasure it is to work with that file. This is not to say the in-camera jpeg engine isn't great - but once you throw the extra data away you have limited your options... I often shoot RAW+JPG.

As a someone who owns (and uses) a lot of old lenses, I see his points. I agree with the the author for certain types of photography, but sports/action, landscape, and architectural photographers have different priorities than what's presented here. Given the small, highly-compressed jpeg examples, I couldn't really see what he was talking about. There is some obvious cherry picking going on in selecting the examples - it's obvious the author isn't really moved to make or find a good photo with the modern lenses - they're just quick "example" snapshots. Again - I think I agree with the author - but I don't find the article very convincing. "You simply cannot cheat the diagram." Ha. I guess that would be true if the diagram was based on numbers. But the diagrams are just impressive-looking stand-ins for actual data. The diagrams are a symptom of the inability to express the idea using words and photographs. If the author reads this, please don't take my comments as disrespect. A good bit of work went into this and I respect that.