Jano

Hey guys, after importing the first images to Lightroom (on a Mac running 10.11.2) after the update I noticed a weird behaviour: All RAW images are cropped to 16:9 after import. Changing the crop ratio to "Original" instead of "As Shot" fixes things. It's a small annoyance as it can quickly be fixed for all images but still it is kind of stupid. Has anyone else had that problem? The only thing I could find about it was this post on DPR: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3966021

Rico, you know that an ISO 1600 RAW is exactly the same as ISO 6400 RAW. And as I've shown (got that tip from you!) the camera can push ISO 1600 two stops without waxing. So saying this couldn't be resolved through FW is obviously wrong.

That is repeatedly said but then why doesn't Fuji apply it at lower ISOs? Haven't read a good explanation of that so to me it sounds a lot like an excuse...

To me it's a rather big issue, yes. With Fuji I like to use JPEG in different situations because I prefer shooting than post-processing. And for day-to-day photos of my family or a friend's birthday party I really don't need that last bit of control and quality. Also I love the options that Fuji gives us to adjust shadows, highlights and colour. Pushing the shadows a bit and pulling the highlights gives me wonderful images in many higher-contrast situations (especially when combined with the expanded DR modes). Fuji's algorithms for pushing/pulling are much better than Lightroom's imho. In LR it takes a lot more work to get some images right that the in-camera converter outputs beautifully within half a minute. As far as I know no serious converter reads and applies those setting automatically so converting the RAWs in LR would mean a lot more work for me.

Good question. Yes, I have. Same problem though I haven't tried all of them because some just don't fit my style. And as Trenton has shown, even B&W has the same problem.

Dear Fuji, I'm fed up. I love your JPEG colours and there are many use cases where I have stopped wasting time working on a RAW file when the JPEG is just beautiful as is. Especially for images I take of my family I don't want and need that extra work. But let me state this as clearly as possible: your JPEGs suck when using anything north of ISO 3200, especially for photographing people. I don't want my family to look like I stole them from Madame Tussauds! I have only been getting stupid replies from your German staff members who don't acknowledge the problem but instead look for excuses why the images look the way they do. So now I will use this forum to hopefully put some pressure on you to solve this problem. I'm not the first but it seems most have given up after a while. Let me prove the problem with some images of my son, who was obviously delighted to be photographed. Don't worry, he got raisins afterwards which made him happy again ;-) The first image is an OOC JPEG shot at ISO 6400. Astia film simulation, AWB and NR set to "-2". The rest of the settings are untouched. Let me introduce you to Mr. Waxy: The second image is the RAF file converted through Iridient using the standard settings: The second image is great and absolutely usable for me. The first would immediately go to the trash because it is terrible. Japanese might like that look, I don't know. Fuji might like that look and call it "Image Intelligence", but to me and many others it just looks terrible. Here's what I want: I want a setting to turn NR off completely. I know "completely" might be the wrong word because that is not possible from what I know. So I'll be more precise: I want an ISO 6400 JPEG to look like an underexposed shot at ISO 1600 that is pushed two stops with the in-camera converter. For some strange reason the resulting image looks completely different in the noise and detail department that a JPEG shot using ISO 6400. To prove that point as well, here's my son again. This time I underexposed two stops by lowering the ISO to 1600 and keeping the aperture and shutter speed. Afterwards I pushed the image two stops in-camera: It looks great to my eyes and clearly proves that your JPEG engine is capable of delivering this. Since ISO 6400 is really just ISO 1600 digitally amplified two stops this should be the easiest thing to program into a firmware update. Stop finding excuses and just do it, for goodness' sake, I thought Fuji was known for listening to its users! ------ Dear forum members, Fuji probably won't read this on their own. If you want this fixed as well, you have two options and I hope you will use both of them: 1: comment on this thread and express your opinion. Feel free to say if it doesn't bother you but please don't pretend that there isn't a problem. It's clearly visible to anyone with one or more eyes. Also feel free to add other examples of the wax problem. 2: write to Fuji and send them the link to this thread. Tell them directly that this is embarrassing and should be fixed through a firmware update. Yes, even on the left-behind-X100S. If anyone wants to look at the full size images and compare the amount of detail in the skin, the wall and the shirt at 1:1 magnification, here's a link to my Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/uutydfzb7he8pvu/AACHXnmQA4Rbfl1WUTHouAVHa?dl=0

In a way I agree with you but on the other hand I think the combination of X-T1 and X100S will get you very frustrated with the latter. The X100S has many really annoying quirks which have been ironed out in the later cameras and the AF of the X-T1 is just years ahead of what the X100S manages. I'd advise anyone to instead get an X-T10 or at least X-E2. Also if the main camera breaks you'll still be able to use the 18-135 which will probably be your workhorse lens while travelling.

That's exactly why: replicating so you have a backup. Taking the initial plan of the TO he would use X-T1, 18-135, 35 and Samyang 12. If the zoom breaks (can happen) or gets stolen (dito) he will be left with a 35 mm and a 12 mm lens selection. That is anything but flexible. Since almost everybody here suggests going with the X-T1 and 18-135 he won't be able to afford another ILC body. But leaving for two years with only one body is something I (and several other posters) wouldn't suggest doing. So the X30 would be an affordable backup. Talking about an actual backup here, not as a second body used simultaneously.

That's a really good idea, didn't think of that. The X30 is a very fun little camera and good bang for the buck. It might lose on the spec sheet compared to LX100 and RX100III but those are also more expensive. And for someone already using the X system it would make sense. In that case (and because most here are suggesting to go with WR) I might go with - X-T1 with 18-135 - X30 - 35 f1.4 (would definitely take one fast lens) or 12 f2 if that is more important to you than fast aperture. You would need to carry different batteries for both but apart from that it seems like a nice setup for 2000gbp. Weight would be about 1.5kg.

I'll write my thoughts but they aren't really specific without knowing what you'll want to shoot. I'd definitely go for two cameras. VERSION 1 - 2 times X-T10 - 18-135 bolted on one camera - 35 bolted on the other Pro: lighter (~1.5kg), simpler Cons: if the zoom breaks, you're left with only one prime and two cameras for it VERSION 2 - 2 times X-T10 - XC 16-50 kit lens (usually on one body) - Tokina 11-16 plus adapter for Nikon F mount (replaces the 35 when I'm on the road and more likely to do landscapes) - XF 35 (usually on the second body) - For more reach I would add a Nikkor 100 2.8 Series E, it's really cheap, optically great and light (get's put on when I want some close up portraits) Pro: more versatile (especially at the wide end), not so dependent on one zoom that could break Cons: heavier (~2kg), more objects Both would set you back pretty much 2000 gbp. Getting some stuff used (which I would definitely do!) would make it cheaper and leave some room to breathe if you still need bag, tripod, cards etc. At the long end you can zoom using your feet without changing the perspective much. With WA that's a different story so I would opt for a WA zoom. Concerning WR I would not worry too much about it. Most people when they've been on the bike all day and are soaking wet tend to look for a dry place to stay rather than getting out their camera to shoot the monsoon. I haven't heard of many people having problems with the lack of WR in older Fuji cameras so I believe with a bit of care and maybe a rain cover you should be good to go. Getting an X-T1 and 18-135 will either limit you to taking one camera (which I wouldn't do) or you could only buy another X-T10 with XF 27. That would make you very dependant on the zoom and also you wouldn't have any fast aperture lens with you. Instead of getting the X-T1 I would rather risk ruining one X-T10 in exchange for being able to bring more lens choices.

You'll need to give us a bit more information about what and how you intend to shoot: Mainly landscape? People? If yes, close portraits or with more surroundings? Street? Buildings? Inside buildings? Using a tripod much or mainly handheld? Are you planning to actually shoot in the rain? I have at least 3 ideas and - like milandro also suggested - all of them include two bodies.

Two things: What you lose using old lenses (apart from automatic functions) is mainly micro contrast. Lots of old lenses are gems but the micro contrast is often a lot worse than we are used to now due to inferior coatings (so often not good for backlit subjects). Oil on the blades is actually rather irrelevant with mirrorless cameras since the aperture does not need to close fast like it does on a native camera. The lenses I had with oil on the blades still closed fine, just sometimes too slowly for an exposure on a native camera. One of my favourite manual lenses is the Nikkor 100 f2.8 Series E. It's the little brother of the famous 105 f2.5 but significantly smaller, lighter and cheaper and still offers amazing image quality even wide open. It's very sensitive to direct light though so it's not useful for backlit subjects. Knowing that limitation I've gotten some really nice portraits with it and the 150mm EFOV at large aperture can give awesome subject isolation. It has terrific sharpness even wide open, good contrast if there is not backlight and is built like a tank. I got mine for 50 € in great condition. Here's an example I took on a D200. The lens still performs really well on my D7000. Image is taken at f2.8: Another good performer has been the Nikkor 50 1.8 AiS. It's tiny but really good and I got it for 10 € in great condition (that was a steal...). Better at handling backlight than the aforementioned as well. Sharpness and contrast are good wide open but benefit quite a lot from closing to something like f2.8. This one oiled up (aperture blades) when I took it to Iran so maybe be a bit careful with exposure to heat. It also does great with landscapes but the good examples I have of that are all shot on slide film so that won't help. Here's an example of the D200 (at f1.8): I haven't adapted any of these lenses to a Fuji body since I only own an X100S. But I've used them on my D200 and D7000 so they should do great on Fuji as well. Manual focus on both is a dream. And even with adapter they should nicely fit the small size of Fuji cameras.