Max_Elmar

Cameras come and go, but never, ever sell good glass. Unless you change lens mount, you will eventually regret it.

To quote graflex: "Iridient provides the option to use the MAC OS raw demosaicing. However it also provides two additional X-Trans demosiaicing algorithms that do not rely on the OS API." This is an important distinction. If Irident had only "MAC OS raw demosaicing" there would be little point to it, really.

I love the 18/2 - one of my most-used lenses. I know it's not a super performer in the corners wide open, but for landscapes I find it does very well @f5.6 - how many fast 28s have you used that are great in the corners wide open? The CV 28/2, CV 28/1.8, Nikon 28/1.4 and even the summicron 28 aren't really setting the world on fire wide open in corners. (To be fair, Leica guys judge pretty harshly - as they should given the price.) I find it at least as good as the zoom - and then there is the extra stop, and compact size. What's not to love?

I was just testing Darktable. I had tried it about a year ago, but the Mac version was too unstable for my taste at the time. Newest version vastly better, happy to say. A candidate to replace Lightroom in some ways. No automatic CA corrections (for non-Bayer sensors) in the "Darkroom" module, unfortunately. Very fiddly to do it manually with the sliders - no eyedropper tool to help. I could not achieve an acceptable result. Otherwise, not a bad RAF developer. Amazing what Fuji is doing in camera - obvious when you look at a jpeg and an RAF next to each other at 100%.

Struggling with this for the last year since I grabbed a cheap X-E1 and fell in love with it. It has helped that I have at last found a JPEG color setting that I really like and it has become a matter of simply adjusting a decade of Nikon-based workflow. At the same time, I am moving away from an Adobe-based workflow at home. (Not so long after having my Aperture-based workflow die a slow death.) Changes! Fuji has such a strong film heritage - I guess my problem is I never really loved ANY color film, Fuji or otherwise. I have had to work to find what I think is a really neutral color setting. (In my case I shoot Pro-Neg Soft with -2 Color.) The result is a bit bland, but still malleable - I can add saturation, or contrast, or tweak the WB (sort of) - within the limits imposed by an 8-bit-per-color jpg. I can tweak the "Fuji Cyan Sky" syndrome. Still going to keep those RAW files. But I may never need them if I'm lucky. Good thing storage is cheap. In case you are wondering - I loved - and still love Tri-X. But only in medium format or larger.

That's really beautiful, Trenton. Well done.

That's really beautiful, Trenton. Well done.

All cards die. It's just a matter of time. About 3-5% are faulty from the factory. I never use cards larger than 16gb except for video. Just too easy to loose thousands of images at once. The cost per GB goes up, too. Last I checked, you need a new folder for more than 9999 photos. Still, again, way too many too lose in one shot.

Sony had a flap like this one few years ago with one of their IR cameras. www.wired.com/2015/08/fujifilm-x-t1-infrared/ Of course, I don't think they have one to test, but the phenomenon is well known.

It depends on a lot of factors, but I often had problems with posterization when making very large prints from jpegs. I made a series of architectural and landscape prints for one of our offices and the images with large patches of sky showed it most clearly. If you know bit about how jpeg compression works, this makes some sense. I fixed it by outputting a 16 bit TIFF at the correct size from the RAW file. Go EASY on the sharpening until the very last step! I also made the final color/exposure adjustments on the TIFF. I got good 24x36 prints from a 6mpx Nikon RAW file by this method. Much easier to work with 36mpx files from a D800 nowadays - but I still work from big 16 bit-per-channel TIFF files when I need to print large.

All else equal? (Which it never is.) X-Pro1 for sure. Yeah I know the X-T1 was a bigger seller, but they never upgraded the X-Pro hardware so how do we know how each would sell in the same market at the same time? The X-Pro will be more expensive because it's simply not cheap to make a quality OVF, let alone a hybrid. An EVF is just another chip... My guess is that if Fuji makes an X-Pro2, it will be positioned at the top of the line, at least until an X-T2 comes out.

The Rokinon is the value king, and a very different animal than the 10-24. Ultra-wide zooms are very handy - it's hard enough to make a good composition with an ultra-wide view - the zoom feature helps a lot. But I like small, fast primes on my Fuji.

JPEG SOOC? Broken or bad copy of the lens. Any other work flow? CA reduction got turned off - or never applied. (Probably not the camera.)

Flash always worked well for me in Auto WB. I believe the camera is inclined to choose something close to flash color temp when the flash is deployed. Some types of artificial light are another matter - older florescent lights can be very challenging. A room full of old fluorescent tubes - all different brands and ages is a multicolor light show - and they flicker at line frequency! I find modern LED lighting to be vastly superior. A mixture of lighting types can be extremely challenging as the camera can only be set for one color temperature. This is one reason why some photographers love studios where all of this can be controlled. And black & white. Anyone who uses flash on a regular basis will have a set of filters to "correct" the flash to the same color temperature as the other lighting. I have gone as far as to shoot raw, and process layers based on color temp, then combine the layers to get rid of odd color shadows in a photo lit by multiple types of lighting!

I've always found (with both my Nikon and Fuji cameras) that WB presets are rarely correct without adjustment. Auto WB is considerably better, but only within a certain band or relatively "normal" lighting temps. It's OK by me - I believe that, like exposure, the photographer should be in charge of this, not some algorithm. The solution is simple - shoot jpeg, but determine the color temperature before the shot - or shoot RAW and determine it after the fact. For snapshots in normal lighting, the Auto White Balance performs quite well.

I believe the X-E1 records 12 bits and the X-T1 records 14 bits. So yeah, the RAW files with be larger. For comparison: Sony's latest and greatest, still with lossy compression on RAW files, is effectively recording 11 bits. Nikon lets you choose 14 bit or 12 bit recording, no compression, lossy, or lossless compression. It would be nice for Fuji to add a lossless compression option. Fuji 16mp raw files are much larger than Nikon 16mp raw files.

No one will pay the premium price for a 32/1.8 when they can get a 35/1.4 for less... But I think it was the Samyang/Rokinon 12mm that really killed them. Let's face it - Zeiss just wasn't living up to the premium hype and price with the Touit line. They are not made by magic Teutonic elves in the Black Forrest - why are we paying as if they were?

I don't think this is a weather seal issue. There is absolutely nothing "Weather Resistant" about any camera when you take the lens off. That's what 2nd bodies are for. Yes "Weather Resistant" is a marketing term. It's not quite meaningless, but expecting it to resist "a few hours of heavy rain with nothing to cover my camera" is wishful thinking at best. All this is why IPX ratings were invented.

"... you should consider this: Microsoft is offering windows 10 to users of windows 7 for free....." Ahem. Free for the FIRST YEAR. "Windows as Service" after that.

I shoot a D7000 and an X-E1. I find the "flattest" jpg look for Fuji is "Pro Neg Soft." You would probably have to make some additional adjustments to achieve the true Nikon "Flat" look. Those adjustments would probably be in the direction of less saturation and less contrast. The idea being that color saturation and contrast can always be added in post - shooting with the film simulations can clip the individual color channels - you can't get that data back. And if the camera blew the WB setting, you're really hosed. Shooting RAW avoids all this, but I know that's not your thing. Long story short: try Pro Neg Soft. "Ns" in the quick menu.

Yes, the Sam/Rok 12mm is the value king. It's not quite as incredible as the 14mm (which may be one of the best 90deg lenses out there - according to my Leica buddies), but it's considerably wider and and a stop faster - and that's an amazing achievement. If you need wider than 14 and you're on a budget, it's an obvious choice. Even if you had the zoom, you may want to have a FAST ultra wide available.

Care to elaborate? I can't find any evidence these were actually produced or are available anywhere.