asathor

-

I did not check the format setting of the card since my tools are at work. I will see if I have a chance to test some new cards later. The most likely problem is that the camera could not handle the increased sector size that is cnormally progressively increased with newer and larger storage media. PC and MACs are already programmed to handle widely varying media but apparently Fujifilm did not include this small update in their firmware updates (it is basically a lookup table for translating the layout unless it is chip limited). enjoy your X-Pro2

Should and must are not the same thing. 99.9% compatibility is not close enough in production because you don'the know which component is at fault. In my work I would never put a drive in a server that was not 100% compatible, those go on the shelf until I have time to test them, and only after they pass all test and boot up correctly with several different installation do I release them, and then only for desktop use. In this case it is likely that the card came formatted to a newer sector layout standard, however the camera did not reject it, it simply hung on writing to it. I though I would save someone a heart attack.

I just found that my X-E2 and X-M1 cannot handle the new 32 GB Samsung Pro (grey) 90MBs/80MBs SD cards as they ship. They must be formatted in camera to work.

The strength of the 56 is low light performance / speed and excellent peformance from the get go even wide open The main flaw of the 56 is that the depth of field is so shallow that you now have to pay attention to depth of field to avoid missing a shot (think close range profile shot: focus on nose with the lens wide open and miss both eyes - bummer) An odd flaw is that the 56 has a loose plastic hood that amplifies focusing noices. That yhe 56 is big and clumsy is a natural result of the 1.2 apature - considering the performance it is amazingly small. The strength of the 60 is its excellent performance at any apature and closer than usual focusing and light weight (you need extension tubes to call it Macro). The main flaw of the 60 is that the in-camera Macro Lock-Out (X-E1 & 2, and X-M1) does not work on this lens, so it frequently runs the whole focus range much like a squirrel runs up and down a tree looking for nuts (the workaround is to prefocus). Fucus is slower but not bad when it does not guess wrong. An odd issue is that the cool precision metal hood will transfer most of the energy of a blow to the hood to the lens body. The 60mm now sels for half of the 56 so the prices are reasonable in comparison. What is needed is a 60 Mk II - with proper 1:1 Macro and a working focus limiter - that would make it a hard choice, and a much much better justification for having both. If you need handheld Macro then the 18-135 is better than the 60 because of it's excellent stabilization.

I get my straps at Guitar center, natural leather doesn't slip. Marine stores like West Marine has modern ropes where even the thinnest will tear the arm of you or a thief before they break. Also rope does not rattle.

It would be silly to continue to placate and copy an obsolete 35 mm world. mm are irrelevant. I was just playing with the comparator @ imaging-resourse and found that the Sony A7R2 is matched by the XT1 at high ISO and thougroughly embarrassed by the sigma Quattro at Iso 100. There is no benefit to Fuji from playing the old game. (unless you think that bad alias is the same as detail).

they bought Samsung

All 27 mm mostly wide open 'https://boundarylayers.smugmug.com/Music/Lost-Boys-at-The-Narrows-/

Just tried two used 35s . Without a proper target I expect that at least one of them front-focused so I let them be. I will be testing my bodies when I have time and may go back. Of course there is the matter of the expectation that the X-Pro2 probably will be offered with the 35f2 for a couple hundred bucks premium. I took a lot of good pictures in the past with an all metal 50mm1.8 (Canon) because that is what I had (and it was quite good anyway). Now I have the Fuji 27f2.4 which is great and as sharp as the 23/35 but one and a half stop slow, that is a lot in low light but not much in daylight. I am seriously worried that Fuji will continue to succumb to marketing pressures (come on a 56mm - weak) and make lenses that fit a certain traditional mm specification rather than what is best for a certain design to win over Canon and Nicon traditionalists. That is the kind of thing that will make their engineers cringe and think they work for the big 3. How about a 42mmf1.3 - that would be sweet, I might even buy a 72mmf1.6 to go with it. (I do have the 60mm). You know what I mean.......

Aside from the firmware there are two parts to this problem (actually 3: who install Win 10 except by mistake). Most Importantly Fuji does not allow renaming of folders except if you remove the card from the camera and second the camera cannot read folders it did not create. Personally I remove the card and rename "The Catch of the Day" by date (like) 2015-11-05 etc. this naming sorts alpha-numerically so it is very practical. But after that the camera can't see the folder - it sucks either way - 2000 images in one folder or images you can't review!

Before I remove my old website I thought some of you might enjoy seeing how good Fujifilm was 10+ years ago: http://www.boundarylayers.com/Ramblings/Ramblings2-bits.htm Note the two links below the text: What's hiding in the shadows. - How your eyes adjusts. Like I said it is dated but really, the improvements are basically incremental, nothing more! And I still don't like fake colors incl. HDR.

A word of caution on performance. Slim laptop and most mini computers (PC and MAC) typically use the "mobile" Intel processors. The speed of what is called an i5 in a laptop is about half of that of a desktop i5. Thats explains why what is an i5 in a laptop is an i3 in a dektop - they are really the same, this is what they call marketing. The underlying issue is power consumption - in laptops you get a frugal CPU that runs on much less power for the price of admission. Apple doesn't even mention what cpu's they are using, not that it helps much when Intel introduces new ones every 6 month or less. Most stuff today is manufacured in batches (production runs) - when all is sold a new (sub)version comes out using the bargain chips "of the week." Network, Blue Tooth and Sound chips are first in line to be changed but even screens and various other components change without an official model designation change. So not even camparing Apples to Apples is possible.

I have been using ACDSee Pro since my Fujifilm S6000fd days and have always enjoyed the fact that it uses the Native Windows filesystem adding an "originals" folders whenever you modify a file. Because everything stays in it's place I know exactly what to back up and I never loose an edited file. The batch functions also respect the original folder structure and for example add "resized" to the name. I have been most of my quick adjustments and file managing in ACDSee for years but for editing I also use PhotoShop, Corel PhotoPaint PaintShop Pro and Draw, and my favorite Text generator is still U-lead Photo Impact (now Corel). I have SilkyPix set as the default RAW processor and it also places the picture in the same folder where it found it after development, thank you! The ACDSee does a very nice job of generation/reading the preview jpg and it shows the added tonal range realistically, and the colors are likewise good with the preview being flatter (wider DR) and slightly less saturated. It does not however show the possible resolution improvement but the scrolling speed is Lights Years ahead of Light (Dark) Room. The GUI is not that good for "mousers" - you cannot always get sliders back to zero with the mouse - but you can with the Keyboard Arrow keys - so thats what I use. The jury is out on the development functionality - the output is not better than the in-camera jpgs except for the recovery potential. But if you use ACDSee Pro9 with SilkyPix 2 (now version 4 engine) you can kick out a tiff easily and use the much more flexible and user friendly interface in ACDSee for all the adjustments. This is ACDSee's first version of X-Trans functionality and it is not at all a poor entry. I am hugely pleased with the efficient PreView and since I usually set my camera to produce good jpgs it allows me quickly pick photos to send to a better developer when the potential is worth the time without jumping around between programs. I paid $79 for the ACD upgrade and I have a paid-for fully licensed version of LR which it is very good for making slide shows, but LR will not my first choise in dancing partner when I have the choice of a willing, fleet of foot partner in ACDSee Pro. I can post a couple items for comparison later but have to sign out for now.

I almost forgot.... Quit copying 35mm focal lenghts - start making the lenses the best you can in each Focal Lenght Range

I expect to buy an X-Pro2 but what I really want is an XE-3 and with that... a viewfinder/screen that does not fully auto adjust for lighting and a good exposure readout - I loved my old match-needle viewfinder from the 70's - pan it across a scene and you knew exactly where to set the exposure - My eyes are analogue, my brain is analogue, the camera sensor is analogue and I want my camera to at least feel analogue. When we have a 4 ev dynamic range to cover in the highlights the camera should help us to know where that is - not guess for us.

First I fix the Fuji Shortcoming of folder naming by renaming the folder ON MY CARDS to yyyy-mm-dd maybe adding a descriptor if all is one batch. (this is my only reason for posting since no one else mentioned it) Then I copy to my DCIM directory on my computer(s) When available I split the RAW and JPG into folders and later copy important images to a "Show" folder - I rarely need the RAW as I shoot at -0.3EV most of the time. I add extensions as I go xxx-show - or - xxx-show-cr-fx including v1, v2 etc. keeping the original serial number in the beginning. It works for me as I am in Windows. I use ACDSee Pro - it lacks XTrans RAW - but it very fast and has an incredible developer that is very logical and it is Fully Integrated with the Windows file system so all file sorts line up logically by date and extended name. It is also is non destructive adding a backup automatically. The backup and sidecar does not pollute your folders as they are in a subfolder. I have Lightroom but it makes no sense to me that it is not integrated into the filesystem. Opening an old or new directory is painfully slow and as usual with Adobe not worth the wait or money so I don't use it except for special features like making slide shows for online. Are there any software hacks for in-camera File Naming???

Ken Rockwell is the FOX TV of photo journalism infotainment. If you agree with him you will find his reviews concise and to the point, but if your Saturation Dial does not go "10" you don't have much common ground and should look elsewhere. What impresses me a lot is that he is not selling "clicks" - this forum page for example has 10 tracking and advertising content links - Ken's have none - his promotions are direct and to the point! He also recommends the Nikon 3300 as The Best Camera for Most Things - try to find a photo site that is that honest about how much gear we really need. What does upsets me is that he starves his children enough to make them look hungry, and desaturate their photos to make them look sick.

When shooting action and in low light I enjoy having both eyes open so the one is free of the camera can see what is going on and anticipate what is coming. The next updated "range finder" style body with better resolution, be that X-Pro2 or X-E3, will be mine. In the Extra's department it would cool to have a EVF that could rotate 180 to provide for upside down shooting - camera should never be between us and the subject.

Using DP-review images is not going to work. They are an Adobe Franchise and Adobe has been slow to get the quality for X up so the visual differences may be from who-knows-what. It is faster to compress less so the larger file size may be a matter of getting the same performance from a different chip (slower = battery drain) with a small potential image improvement thrown in the back door by that change. In the micro chip universe different firmware versions often serve to correct production flaws in a new batch of chips - with changes and firmware improvements thrown in along with the repairs. It can make them hard to untangle so don't loose sleep wanting everything.