aceflibble

X100S and X-T10 have it left on by default for quick shooting, with the shutter speed set to 1/125th and 1/250th, respectively, and the max ISO set to 3200. For 'proper' shooting I always set the ISO manually, and my X-T1 never goes into auto ISO. Though really I'm doing it more out of habit than anything. Auto ISO was never an option on any of my cameras until a couple of years ago, or when it was an option it was so poorly-implemented that it wasn't worth thinking about. I'm too used to setting everything manually to remember that auto ISO and exposure compensation even exist. I am starting to shift into auto ISO more often though, especially since picking up the X-T10, and I bet by this time next year I'll be using it at least 50% of the time.

With Silkypix, no; with Lightroom, yes for most film simulations, almost for the others. Lightroom's film simulations match Fuji's film simulations except for the purest of green tones, and Lightroom's H/S/L sliders can compensate for that perfectly. (I have now set Lightroom to automatically shift the green slider to +5 for both luminance and saturation for Fuji raw files and that seems to make it match 99% of the time.) The exception is Classic Chrome, which Lightroom has nailed so closely already I've yet to see any difference with real-world photos and only a minor difference in technical testing. The sharpening and noise reduction controls of Lightroom aren't as robust as I'd like, but they are good enough* that they can replicate the look of Fuji's sharpening and noise reduction if you really want that, or they can simply be better than Fuji's options if you just knock noise reduction right down to 0 for everything below ISO 800. Silkypix is trickier to get close to the Fuji in-camera simulations. It doesn't mishandle green as much as Lightroom does but all colours are evenly 'off' and contrast is a little different to Fuji's. I tend to notice softer contrast at the extreme shadows and highlights with Silkypix and harder contrast throughout the midtones. I expect making Silkypix duplicate the look of Fuji's files exactly would be possible, but considering how Lightroom is only one colour off and Silkypix has every colour off and some differences in contrast, I've yet to bother trying to get that kind of result out of Silkypix. It'll be more effort and time for a result another program already gives me automatically. If I shot landscapes I'd probably try to get more out of Silkypix, but as someone who is mostly shooting indoors, Lightroom makes more sense for me. When it comes to matching the Fuji in-camera files exactly, Lightroom blows Silkypix out of the water. Hit up Lightroom and you'll get the results you want, unless you're doing a lot of traditional landscapes. *I say "good enough", but I think it may be more apt to say that Lightroom's noise reduction is bad enough to replicate Fuji's noise reduction.

Yet to have a problem with handling both jpg and raw in Lightroom myself, though usually when I shoot raw+jpg I discard the jpg anyway; even when I do keep them both, Lightroom can stack or separate them as required, you have many options. As for colour handling and the film simulations, I recently did a test here where I show the only major difference between the in-camera film simulations and the Lightroom versions is with pure green, which is easily compensated for by the H/S/L sliders. Considering how much detail and sharpness you lose with Fuji's in-camera .jpg files, I consider it a more than favourable trade to use Lightroom. If you want the Lightroom colours to match Fuji's exactly, you can set Lightroom to automatically tweak the green tones in all Fuji raw files on import. Then the only thing .jpg is giving you is faster save/import/export times, while raw gives you the white balance control you're asking for and sharper, more detailed images. Or, as I said before, I'm a big advocate of getting used to setting your white balance with the Kelvin option (even if you shoot raw, in fact), and that solves your Auto WB problem. Live with the Kelvin setting for a week or two and it'll become second nature and won't slow you down in the slightest, and the colour is more correct than with the Fuji preset white balances. If you learn to set temperature in Kelvin, your .jpgs will have the right colour balance every time. Fact is, there is no way to make Auto WB work as accurately as you want. If there was, there would be no point in the other options existing at all. Auto WB will always give you a different balance on every shot you take, even in consistent lighting. The preset white balance options in Fuji cameras have large colour shifts towards blue and green, which is a big problem for those skin tones you previously mentioned. Kelvin does what you want, raw does what you want. Every other option gives you either inconsistency or inaccuracy. I wish there was a simple button to press to make Auto WB nail it perfectly every single time and smartly know when to keep with the same balance between shots, but we're still years, if not decades, away from that technology. I wish Fuji would make their WB presets accurate to industry standards, but Fuji built their name on cool-tinted film so they want their cameras to lean towards cool tones, too, and we're unlikely to see that 'fixed', ever.

I almost always set the white balance using Kelvin. Fuji's preset white balances—daylight/fine, shade, etc—all run slightly blue and slightly tinted green compared to industry standards. Auto WB also tends towards cooler tones. However, the Kelvin settings are exactly what they state they are. It takes some getting used to, but eventually you will just pick up a sense for what K setting you should be using for any particular space. Of ocurse, with mirrorless cameras you get the bonus feature of being able to preview the white balance ont he screen, so it's very easy to figure out and learn which K setting to use in any situation. Otherwise, stick with raw. Importing a raw file, normalising the white balance across all your files and exporting again is hardly extensive. If you keep to raw files you'll always have the white balance you want and you'll get a sharper image, too. For something like a graduation I would never risk relying on .jpg files. There's no way to make Auto WB reliable.

My back gave out and I had to scale back how much I use medium format and SLRs. As I'd picked up an X100S as my point-and-shoot previously, it made sense to give the X-T1 a try. I like the tilty screen, so I've stuck with it. Make no mistake about it, Fuji aren't suitable for some of my work—I'm sometimes required to deliver files over 20mp so that's Fuji out of the question—and if I truly had my choice I'd still be using a Mamiya 6x7 for everything. But hey, needs must, and Fuji feels to be the best of the available options for the role I need them to fill.

Though I previously have been all aboard the T-train, since the T10 came out I've barely touched my T1. Something about the smaller body just works better, for me, for that kind of body style. So, with that in mind, I think I would now go for a Pro2 over a T2. The T10 is doing everything I like about the T1 and takes up less space in the bag. In a hypothetical world where the T2 and Pro2 have the same sensor, screen and everything else and the only difference is the body shape, I might as well go for a Pro2. The full-size T line seems really redundant now that the T10 is here. Which is odd, because with SLR and medium format I've always been more comfortable the larger the camera is. The Pro does need to be available in silver, though. As redundant as the find the T1/T2 body to be, now, if that is still available in silver and the Pro2 remains in black only, hells to it, I'll get the T2.

If I just took a picture of whatever-the-hell, I'll have set the camera to only make a .JPG, therefore: Import using standard Lightroom import function; everything left to default. ctrl+click each file I want. Export to desktop as a .jpg, scaling to 1200 or 540 pixels on the long side and low sharpening for screen. 200kb limit for 540 res files, quality at 95 for 1200 res. Use original file name. Delete original .jpg, delete import folder, format SD card. Delete scaled .jpg once I'm done posting it wherever. I do not keep these kinds of files for longer than an hour or so. If I used a Fuji on a job, I'll have shot raw. In that case: Import using standard Lightroom function; Lightroom automatically sets my Fuji raw files to use the Pro Negative Standard colour profile, no noise reduction, no colour or contrast alterations, linear tone curve and sharpening set to 15. display images fit to screen, right arrow through, hitting P for each image I like. I don't debate or go back over images. I either like it or I don't. Filter folder to only show unflagged images; delete all unflagged files. Display all flagged images. Select all. If it's a product shoot, push Clarity and Vibrance to +10 each, White to +20 and take Black to -20. Sync all files. Any other kind of job, skip this step. Export as a .jpg, resolution, quality and sharpening depending on subject & client. File name is either date & number sequence or custom name & number sequence, depending on the client. Delete unused files and format SD card. For cataloguing and file storage, I simply make a fresh catalogue for each new year. I keep the previous year's catalogue (e.g. 2014) and delete anything from the year before that (e.g. 2013). No tagging, no keywords, no copyright. Nobody cares. The joys of working in modern medias and fashions is people are really into something on Monday and have moved on to the next big thing by the end of Friday. There's not even really any point in keeping files for longer than a month. Accuracy and resolution are the thing that matter most so I've got other photo software on this computer but never touch it; Photoshop is a dirty word in my circles. Just keep it simple, keep it quick, I can do a month's work in two afternoons. If I were a wedding photographer or some such, and I had to piss about archiving thousands of files and airbrushing skin and switching between multiple programs and running everything through plugins and making up books and whatever, I'd just not bother and go work in retail. Sod all that, life's too short. Import, pick, export, forget about it. Job done, time for tea and cake.

Tethering isn't a big selling point in Japan. Guess which region the Japanese company takes most of its cues from.

Having used the 16mm a bit more now, I'm actually doing the opposite of what I said I thought I would and I'm sticking to the 14mm. The extra speed of the 16mm has been very useful, but the framing is just that touch too narrow for when I want a wide shot. Bear in mind I am mostly shooting indoors in dark and cramped conditions, where the extra 2mm can make a gigantic difference; when I'm reaching for a wide angle lens it's purely because I'm in too small a space for anything else to get everything in frame. So, the 16mm's been sold already. Width has to take priority over speed at that end of the focal range. Using the T10 more—I think I'm using it more now than the T1—I've also thought more about balance and weight and have been adjusting my bag accordingly. In fact, I've sold everything bar three lenses. So, as of right now, my actual three lens kit is the 14m, 35mm and 56mm. That said, the ideal kit for me would definitely be 14mm, 27mm and a 70mm all at f/2. The f/2.8 of the 14mm is only just fast enough for how I use that focal length, and for the middle focal length f/2.8 is definitely too slow; the 56mm is okay but I much prefer the 100-105mm (equivalent) focal length so a 70mm would be perfect.

(Background info so you're aware of where I'm coming from: I have an X-T1, was considering a used T1 or an X-E2 as a backup body, then the X-T10 came out and after trying a pre-production unit, I went with the T10. So, obviously I have a slight bias toward buying an T10 as a backup to an T1. I use the Fuji cameras for portrait & dark indoor events where AF performance is a priority.) The way I'd look at it is this: we don't know when the E2's update is coming and what it will actually do, so you could be in for a very long wait for an update that solves nothing; however, since you already have the E2 and prices for the other two will only get lower, you're not losing money by waiting to see what the E2's update is like. The very worst case is you wait for six or seven months, the AF isn't improved and you can still sell the E2 and pick up a T1 or T10—or hell, maybe even a Pro2—for a little less than they cost right now. Best case is in a few months' time your E2 gets the AF you want and you've not lost a single penny. If the idea of waiting six months or so doesn't appeal and you want results right now, I say go for the T10. The T1 and T10 are virtually the same. Obviously the T10 is smaller and not weather sealed—and the buffer is much worse if you're one of those rare Fuji users who makes use of high-speed continuous shooting—but it's unlikely these things will ever cause problems during wedding and portrait shooting. The only drawback for portrait shooting is the small body is hilariously outweighed by the 50-140mm, so if you use that lens be prepared for people to be too busy laughing to pose. The AF is identical. A used T1 vs a new T10 basically comes down to whether or not you can get a really, really good bargain price on the T1. Most secondhand T1s in good condition still cost a couple hundred more than a brand new T10. If you're not patient enough to wait for the E2 update then I would guess you also don't want to wait for a lucky bargain T1 to turn up. Time to kill = wait it out Urgently need the upgrade = T10

The X-T1 and X-T10 still use the phase detection when using 'instant AF' (pressing AF-L in manual mode). It was added to the black X-T1 in a firmware update at the end of last year and the Graphite Silver X-T1 and X-T10 launched with it. I don't remember if the X-Pro1, X-E2 and any of the X100 cameras got this update or not. It does still have the massive drawbacks of leaving you open to accidentally shifting focus by nudging the focus ring—i.e. manual focus is still active and overrides the AF-L button, so you don't get true back-button focus—but it's as good as Fuji gets. Why they can't/won't provide an option for proper back button focusing, I don't know.

At this point in time it's unlikely they've even finalised the design for mass production.

I started with film some 20-ish years ago and still use film. 35mm, medium format and large format. If Fuji cameras actually acted, felt or gave results like my film cameras, I wouldn't own any Fuji cameras. Fuji cameras only seem like film cameras to people who remember film but haven't actually used it any time recently. The difference in look between the Fuji film simulations and their actual film counterparts—when the film is processed correctly, at least—is gigantic. The difference in operation is huge. Mirrorless is the very opposite of shooting film. Whenever somebody says any modern camera—be it a Fuji or something run through a VSCO filter or whatever—looks like film or reminds them of film, I can't help but frown. These days, "it looks just like film!" means "it looks like film which was poorly exposed, then poorly processed, then poorly scanned": clipping to grey rather than actual black and white; huge, blobby noise; nothing actually in focus; smeary tints. When somebody says a camera feels like an old film camera, all they mean is it has more than one top dial and no touch screen. If people want a camera which feels like an old film camera and they want a look like film, buy a Canon A-1. You can pick them up in good condition with renewed seals for <£100 with a lens and they have shutter, aperture and P exposure modes, so you don't have to worry about developing a feel for exposure. The AE-1 was the first consumer camera with auto exposure and that's even cheaper, you can get that for under £50 with a lens. Film may cost £5 a roll and another £6-7 to have developed, but the price difference between that and buying something like an X-Pro1 will count for a hundred rolls or more. Want the full film experience? 6x6 and 6x7 medium format film cameras from Pentax and Mamiya can be had for <£500. 6x4.5 are even cheaper. Congratulations, you've just gone bigger than 35mm "full frame" and you've spent less than an X-E2 and one lens costs. I shoot film of all types, I always have done and will continue to do so as long as my work demands it, and I think anybody who buys a Fuji for any percieved film-like qualities is A) delusional/misguided and completely misplacing their money. For the record, I started buying Fuji because I wanted a walkabout camera with a better screen than your typical cheap point-and-shoot, and the X100S fit that. I'm in the process or moving all of my gear over to Fuji (can't do it 100% yet until they get over 20mp and make a 70mm f/2) because I like the tilt screens on the X-T1 and X-T10. That's it. If they were actually anything like my film cameras, I never would have touched this brand.

If a bayer array is what you really want then you should consider other brands and stop looking at Fuji, 'cause that's not going to happen as long as the X-Trans is the main selling point Fuji has. You might as well ask Canon to stop painting their big lenses white or tell Leica to make a budget model.

Astia is very close. I think that and Classic Chrome are the two Adobe has matched best. It's only really pure green that the Adobe Astia and Fuji's Astia differ on, and it's pretty rare to find actual pure green in the world, so that's a simulation where you probably really are never going to tell the difference.

While true, this is the stumbling block for me: when stuff I do is printed, it is not looked at as an overall image at a distance anywhere near as much as it is peered at up-close; I have people literally pulling out magnifying glasses when looking at my work. But of course, not everybody has to suffer that scrutiny. I vividly remember when I was young, seeing my father's 35mm shots blown up to 7' high and nobody back then was ever asking for a reprint from a larger source. This is an area where you simply can't make generalisations about what resolution, what PPI and DPI to use for any print size. It all depends on the subject of the image, the reason it is being printed and the people who will be looking at it.

Knowing Italy, I'd say the 10-24 and 35mm. Unless you decide to try some impromptu portraits, there's no reason to have the 55-200. The 10-24 will be good for the narrower streets and wide vistas. The 35mm, if that's your fastest prime, will be good if you take the camera out in the evening. The 23mm would be better, though. Leave the tripod at home, tourists with tripods do nothing but piss off the locals and in most countries throughout continental Europe, using a tripod can get you moved on by the police. (Don't worry, you wouldn't actually get arrested, but they'll tell you to put it away.) The 10-24 has IS anyway and the primes are fast enough to keep the shutter speed high. Maybe you intend to do some long exposures, but if that's the case, find a rock you can rest the camera on. If you do take the tripod, don't bank on using it a whole lot. If I was going back to any part of Italy, in a perfect world with every piece of gear available to me, I'd either take the X-T1 and the 23mm f/1.4 or I'd take an X100T. If I was a zoom user, I'd take the 10-24mm for the day and at night I'd just leave the camera in my hotel. Telephoto isn't as useful around Italy as medium-wide angle is, and you don't want to be lugging around any more than one body and one lens at a time. The 35mm will work okay in place of the 23mm or X100 if you don't have either of them.

Hell, get the X100T. Classic Chrome, similar form as the Pro, wi-fi. If your current kit is the 18mm, 23mm and 35mm as your signature says, stripping down to just the 23mm of the X100 line shouldn't be an issue; there are the wide and telephoto converters, too. And unlike the X-Pro2, you won't be waiting until next year for it. (Though Fuji's wi-fi functionality is utterly terrible, and I don't recommend anybody relies on it.)

Yup, it's a pain in the arse and on the X-T1 I never touch it. **** video. If I could resassign it, I would. Except... ... On the X-T10 it can be resassigned, and I did that, but it turns out that it still doesn't work well. The button has to be held down for a bit over a second for the system to recognise it has been pressed, but hold it down for more than about two seconds and it thinks you want to reassign the button and brings up the function assignment menu. I suppose this is because it's intended as a record button and there's a delay on the input to stop recording from happening accidentally. The difference in time between it not recognising the button press, recognising it and doing the right function and recognising it and bringing up the function menu are so close together that every time you press the damn button you'r basically taking a gamble and you've only got a 1/3 chance of it doing what you want. I assigned mine to switch custom scene, the same as I have the function button on the X100S (same posiiton) set, but it's proven far quicker to simply use the Q menu for that and, lik ethe X-T1, simply forget the record button even exists on the X-T10.

You're not going to get it under 400g. The 16-55mm f/2.8 WR is 655g, and though that is a stop faster, the extra glass to get to 70mm on the long end and the extra weight of image stablisation would weigh just as much as, if not more than, the f/2.8 of the current lens. The Canon equivalents weigh 525g (cheap plastic and not sealed) and 670g (better plastic and slightly sealed) and the Sigma version weighs 885g. The Canon 24-70mm f/4L IS weighs 600g, and that requires less glass than the hypothetical Fuji 16-70mm f/4 would need. To get it under 400g, like the 18-55mm f/2.8-4 lens, you'd need to at least give up weather sealing. Even then it would be very close. Between your figures, 450g, would be the most likely result without weather sealing. If you want it sealed and built really solidly, you're definitely looking at over 500g, most likely close to 600g.

Since Fuji's lenses are all made with the APS field of view in mind, 16-70 f/4 would be more realistic to match the 24-105 lenses that virtually every other manufacturer has. If it was sealed, image stabilised and was plastic enough to keep the weight down, I'd be interested. Focal lengths between 50mm and 100mm at f/4-5 give a very filmic look, which I could see myself getting some use out of. And I am desperate for that 70mm focal length, though really I'd rather have that as an f/2 prime. Canon are discontinuing their 24-105mm lens soon, presumably to be replaced by a new lens or a mark II. Sigma's 24-105 f/4 seems to be doing very well. It's been a very popular zoom and aperture combination since the original 5D launched. It would make sense for Fuji to make a 24-105 f/6 equivalent.

Look at the grid line running along the top of the colour patches. On the Fuji file, the grid and patches line up perfectly. On the un-optimised raw, there is a solid black line—a gap between the patches and the grid—which is larger above the middle patches than the red and mageneta ont he edges. Your standard pincushion distortion. Which is exactly how I know Fuji are running their white balance cool. Every converter reads the Fuji white balance as 5200K. Yes, every converter is different, yet despite them all handling files slightly differently they all still agree that the Fuji daylight balance is running cold at 5200K. Additionally, you can even double-check this in-camera: take a picture with the white balance set to Fine/Daylight and then take another with the white balance set to 5200K. They come out exactly the same. Which, yes, as I said, is likely intentional to copy the cooler colour tones of Fuji film, with Classic Chrome being warmed up to mimic Kodak's tones.

I have a 1D X and I shoot almost exclusively in low light. Frankly, Fuji's low light performance is better when you provide the sensor with enough light and the NIkon and Sony cameras I've used have completely blown away the 1D X. If I wasn't so used to the Canon form factor and if I didn't have so much invested in Canon glass, I probably would have a Nikon D4 instead. Since picking up the Fujis, I now only use the 1D X in low light if I also need the speed, and I do so knowing I'm giving up a little image quality. Don't get me wrong, the 1D X is good in low light, but it's not on the level of the Sony and NIkon, or the Fuji if you compensate for the smaller sensor. That's how Fuji fudges their dynamic range. ISO 200 is actually ISO 140, and the camera automatically pushes the shadows up. This is why ISO below 200 is not available when shooting raw. So yes, Fuji cameras will always meter darker than other brands and if you use a light meter you need to either remember that and compensate for it or you need to buy a digital light meter with profile support so you can set it up to meter specifically for the Fuji sensitivity.

Okay, 1) you don't need to quote a whole massive post, photos included, to write a reply that short, and 2) nothing you have said offers any explanation as to why my examples are wrong. I'm not going to explain it again because I've already repeated myself. I gave examples and explained what was going on with the files. You said I was wrong without explanation as to how. I gave more examples, fully explaining the process behind taking the pictures, where the changes occur and why and how what you are claiming is not physically possible other than via the one differing factor, namely the lens optimisation feature. I have explained why the little you have put forward so far can not be factually accurate in any dimension known to the human race. You have, again, not actually explained why you think differently. You can't just say "you are wrong because you are wrong (by the way please buy my book)." You have to actually explain why you think you're right. I've explained why you're wrong. I've explained the science and I've explained the simple reality. I've provided multiple examples which explicitly show you are wrong. Now, you can learn from this and correct your own information for the future or you can remain wilfully ignorant or you can prove me wrong, I don't mind which, but you need to do one of the three. You're not right just because you say you are right. You're right when you prove you are right, which I have done. If I am wrong, please show why and I will gladly amend my methods to reflect my mistakes.

The X-Pro1 is outdated in terms of the autofocus with some lenses and some of the nicer, more user-friendly tweaks and features of the new cameras, but it still produces the same great images and for casual use it's not really all that different from any other Fuji camera. I know a few professionals who still use the X-Pro1 as their main camera, even though they have an X-T1, because they simply prefer the feel of the X-Pro1. If you really like the rangefinder cameras then the X-Pro1 is the way to go. And because it is a little old you can buy them secondhand for relatively little money. Just be aware that some of the older lenses, especially the 60mm macro lens, focus slowly with the X-Pro1. The newer lenses focus just fine. There's the X-E2 as well, which is virtually the same as the X-Pro1 but a tiny bit newer, a tiny bit smaller and a tiny bit cheaper. The autofocus works slightly better. It doesn't have an optical viewfinder, though. It only has an electronic viewfinder. The X100T is a superb camera and is a good way to start with Fuji. I started with the X100S myself, and I think most Fuji users started with one of the X100 cameras. For general travel work I don't think it is limited at all because, in my experience, you usually end up staying between 24-50mm and the 35mm view of the X100/S/T is perfect. If you want to carry around more options, you can get additional lens converters which extend the X100T's view to that of a 50mm lens, or widen it to 28mm. The X100T's only drawback is that in most countries it costs quite a lot. I wouldn't worry about the X-Pro2 because it is very unlikely to be available until next year, and there is no point waiting that long. Even if the X-Pro2 is a lot better and you decide you want it, you have 6+ months to save up for it and any camera you buy now could be sold again to help fund that purchase when the time comes.