RadBadTad

After doing much searching, comparing, and being frustrated, I've gotten my routine to be based around converting to DNG with X-Transformer, and then processing the resulting files in Lightroom. It's smooth, simple, and relatively painless, and gives the best fine detail I've seen, without the compromises of giving up natural looking colors or an obnoxious workflow (like I had with Photo Ninja).

I wish there was a way to assign it to the BACK dial. I came from Canon so I'm used to having SS on the front dial, and I don't use the back dial for anything while shooting.

I felt the same way, more or less. I really love the look and feel of the XPro2, but really find myself reaching for the X-T2 a LOT more often. I never use the OVF so the eye relief on the XPro2 makes it sort of annoying to actually use for me. So pretty though.

I wasn't happy with the playback button being on the left shoulder on my X-T2 so I assigned that function to the AF-L button. I find that button more or less impossible to use when actually shooting, but when I drop the camera away from my eye, it's in a nice spot for single handed playback.

Well really you shouldn't be too put off by my word that the 56 is too slow to focus. It's too slow for ME, but I tend to be really demanding of my AF speeds. I complain about the AF speed of Fuji in general on here fairly regularly, and many times someone comes in and disagrees, so it's worth testing for yourself. For comparison, I couldn't use the Canon 85mm f/1.2 L either, because it focused so damned slowly. And the 50-140 will do you nicely for full body work so long as you aren't demanding wider than f/2.8 I understanding wanting AF lenses, especially for event shooting like weddings, but the manual focus aides that you get on the X-T2 are incredible. very difficult to miss focus with them turned on. Even shooting at f/.95 on my Mitakon, I feel very confident in my focusing abilities. So you could always get a 56 and use it normally, or use it as a manual focus lens with the focusing aides, or get an old 55mm f/1.2 from another mount and adapt it and save some money. You have lots of options with Fuji! Attached is a shot I took at f/.95 with my Mitakon.

I came from a 5Dmk2 and traded it in for my Fuji gear. I got an X-T1, grip, 18-55, 23mm f/1.4, and a 35mm f/1.4 right off the bat. The X-T1 wasn't really a solid choice. It was good enough for most things, but still felt like a lot of a compromise in order to get a lot less size and weight. I've traded my way up to the X-T2 and I'm much happier. I've also gotten rid of the 35mm f/1.4 in favor of the f/2 for focus speed, and gotten the 50-140. I was missing a really fast lens for dreamy bokeh, so rather than shelling out for the 56mm, I got a Mitakon 35mm f/.95 which I've been using for those sorts of portraits, and I'm really happy now. The 90 and the 56 are both excellent lenses, though they're both super specialized. If you shoot portraits a lot, then really you're going to want either the 56, 90, or 50-140. I haven't ever been let down by my 50-140, so that's my suggestion. The 56 focuses too slowly for me, and the 90 is just a bit too inflexible for my style of shooting. I also got the 16mm and really liked it, but I only ever used it for test shots here and there, and never found myself using it in real life. I never took a "real" photo with it, and sold it a few months after buying it. I get by with my kit lens being my widest. "How good is the X system actually" It's really good, once you bend your workflow to accommodate a bit of the quirks. The flash system is lacking still, but using Canon triggers for studio strobes works just fine. For portrait work in general, I'm really pleased with it, especially after the most recent update to the X-T2 which gave some welcome upgrades to workflow. The only times I've been tempted to switch back to a different system have been in terms of processing large amounts of photos. RAF files are slow to work with, even on fast machines, and getting fine detail AND color AND full latitude out of the files can be an arduous task. Recently Iridient came out with "X-Transformer" which you can use as a plugin in Lightroom which has really helped a LOT though, so things are getting easier and easier every day. I can confidently say that my best photos I've ever taken have been on a Fuji, and it's going to take a LOT to get me to change to anything else again.

Are you in single shot mode, rather than a burst mode? Are you in mechanical shutter mode rather than electronic shutter? Do you have the "preview exposure in manual" mode turned to off? I wish Fuji would tell you WHY things aren't working on your camera rather than just making you feel like it's broken.

I hope it works out for you! I've had great support over the phone, but I've heard that quality of service you get depends greatly on what part of the world you're in. Be sure to report back what you hear from Fuji!

Sounds like a faulty camera, really. The sample photo you posted looks like it would be a lens issue, but if every lens you try, then maybe the sensor is out of alignment or something.

I guess I'll jump in and say that this doesn't happen to mine. I use all the new battery type that came out more recently (Rather than 3rd party, or the ones that came with the X-T1)

Could you point me in their direction? I've found two others but they haven't had any posts in weeks.

Here's the TIFF created by loading the RAF into Lightroom, and then converting to DNG (TIFF) with X-Transformer from Iridient https://www.dropbox.com/s/70bf0zfdp4cnyjs/DSCF0076-Edit.tif?dl=0 You've got some haze and what looks like a bit of aberration going on messing with the fine detail of the roofs and buildings, so it's not going to get razor sharp, but still looks very nice. And using X-Transformer as a Lightroom plugin has been way way easier for me than trying to wrangle a whole different program for editing.

The look of video from a camera is really incredibly dependent on the way it's shot and graded, so pulling some random footage from nobodies online isn't going to be a very good indication of what the camera is capable of. The quality of the video is great, especially if you're using an external recorder for the flat files and better bitrate. And most Fuji shooters are looking for better image quality, not better video. Better AF, better lenses, better processing, better stabilization, etc. Yes, some people are calling for better video, but pretty much everyone who's got an X-T2 on the new firmware is very pleased with what they're getting from the camera.

I realize this is mostly a forum for talking about equipment, but considering that (ideally) most of us are photographers who take photos with our Fuji gear, I feel like it's a problem that posting photos on this forum is cumbersome and limited. Limiting us to 1MB of photos per post? A complex multi-step process to load photos to a post? Shouldn't we be able to post whole photo series to share our successes and frustrations that make us love the system (or make us want to ask for change, or assistance)

I like humor that I have to google to understand.

I have this lens and have done a couple of real shoots with it. I love it, and have only taken it off my X-T2 a couple of times since I got it. My go-to portrait lens, my 50-140, hasn't been out of it's little carrying sack in a month. When I got the Mitakon, I was fully prepared to give up most of my fine detail in exchange for a dreamy narrow DOF look, but shockingly, this thing is pretty damned sharp even wide open. The attached photo is a 100% crop of a photo taken at f/.95

UPDATE - I saw in another thread, someone had suggested better settings for using X-Transformer. Turning off noise reduction and turning off sharpening in the X-Transformer dialog box fixes the strange artifacts in the fine detail and brings the final product up to the same quality as Photo Ninja. Also, when using Photo Ninja, you get a really weird starting point that you have to wrangle to get back to a normal looking photo, and getting pleasing colors is a long task. Not so with X-Transformer which just spits out a nice sharp clean normal looking file with a couple of clicks.

I see people mentioning that they end up with a TIFF file after passing a file through X Transformer, but from what I can see, my only option is to convert my files to DNG. It's not really an important distinction, but I'm curious about what I might be missing?

I don't have much experience with Iridient, but I can tell you with reasonable certainty that the files that it creates will have the same latitude and editability as the original RAF files. It's still outputting a raw file, so all of the information should be there.

Well all of that makes good sense. And I suppose as I think about it from a different perspective, I WANT it to be using my whole processor so that it moves more quickly. So really it's not much of an issue as you help me reframe my issue. So I guess now I'm just upset that even though it's using my entire CPU for 2 hours at 150 degrees f, why does it still take so ridiculously long to process RAF files. Haha Either way, thanks for helping me understand. Makes sense to me now.

Thanks for the suggestion on the benchmark test. My processor results: "With a good single core score, this CPU can easily handle the majority of general computing tasks. Additionally this processor can handle moderate workstation, and even light server workloads. Finally, with a gaming score of 71.9%, this CPUs suitability for 3D gaming is very good." I also got a 92% on my SSD, so that's good. My only "fail" is my graphics card, which makes sense since the card in my Thinkpad is pretty much there for decoration. ------------ I spent 2 hours with Adobe support controlling my computer trying to solve the problem with no luck. My tech took a bunch of logs and said they were going to do some testing and get back to me ASAP. Fingers crossed for a solution!

Here are two full sized JPEGs exported at 100% quality. One is Iridient X-Transformer for Windows The other is Photo Ninja https://www.dropbox.com/sh/gecl004c2g9eyp3/AADBmBqmADVW6xokIe-CV9eka?dl=0 ISO 800 on an XPro2 | 50-140mm at f/2.8 At 100% viewing, I prefer Photo Ninja. It looks smoother, while maintaining detail. The file from Iridient has lots of artifacting, I believe. I could be using Iridient wrong, as I've only had it for about half an hour, but nothing I do can match the detail and natural look of Photo Ninja.

I decided to open up and watch my Task Manager while working through an import and some processing, and interestingly, my CPU usage spikes to 100% the whole time I'm importing or working (Quad core i7), but only 6 to 8 GB of my 32 gigs of RAM get used at any point. That seems backwards to me... The laptop also gets REALLY hot. Like, uncomfortably hot, with the fans running at full blast.

That's pretty strange, but good news for the OP. The fact that it's only some of the photos and not all makes it strange. There must be some unique setting happening in-camera causing the confusion, similar to how Auto-ISO isn't handled well by editing software.

>"I didin't notice capture one any slower than lightroom.. " I was hoping it would be noticeably faster. Lightroom is a dog with RAF files.