kreislauf

Awesome, thanks for sharing!

Are you confusing maximum aperture with the value of a lens? I cannot think of another reason why you are belittling the xf27. For a pancake, this lens IS exceptional. The size is absolutely awesome, the IQ and rendering is amazing and the focal length is optimal for many users. Given the low price, this thing is a must own, seldom leaves my camera and I love the output I can get with my xpro! When I follow the discussion about the xf27, there seem to be quite a number of people who do not own the lens but feel very confident about judging it because of the spec sheet, aperture first. It's about the photos, I say. But some need the big f/1.4 lenses to feel appreciated and make their photos special..

Speak for yourself. I read so many comments that that are obsessed with fast f/1.4 lenses "for artistic and low light performance" of course. Those people probably never used film with f/3.5 lenses... I would agree that a f/2.8 is not an optimal choice to do low light/high iso work. But as a single lens, this definitely works with bravos, giving that some of us shot mostly stepped down at f/4 or "worse" in daylight and do not care about low iso too much... I know, some people love their pro-gear and portraits with only eyelashes of one eye in focus. I on the other hand love this 27mm lens because I gladly trade portability for two (maximal) stops of bokeh and iso... And I wholeheartedly recommend this lens (it's 200€ used). Don't forget: Ricoh GR and sigma merrills/ quattro's all have but a f/2.8 lens. And each of them in the right hands is amazing...

The lens design. An internally focussing 27mm f/2.8 would be awesome. And I would give a kidney for a f/2 Lens!

thank you OP, the profile is amazing. I picked up a XPro1 to replace a X100T and what I missed most besides the small flash was ClassicChrome. Your profile produces images that look right again for me Thank you very much

ah good thing that you know your math, congratulation. Only 1/64th, jesus! Thats terrible. Out of camera jpgs MUST LOOK REALLY BAD BECAUSE OF THIS NUMBER! Yeah. No. What you (maybe!) might not know is, what difference it will make in real life. And what 256 different tones per channel actually translates into an image, compared to 4096 or 16384. In the end: you send processed 8bit jpgs to your printshop, right? Does it make a significant difference, when captured a JPG or RAW? Yes and no. It depends so much on your scenery, your processing and what you actually want in the end. JPGs can be very well be used in serious photowork and general photography! If you know what you are doing and plan your shot (that means: think about it before!) What JPGs can't be used: for internet wars of gear-centric pixel-peeper that like high numbers! And the information is not "thrown away" but translated into 16 millions of colors. The image does not become suddenly worse in image quality. 12bit or 14bit RAW has much more information, I totally agree. You can easily recover 2 stops of highlights with even years old Aptina 1" sensors like in the Nikon 1 cameras. New cameras give you great option to correct the desired latitude in your shots easily in post. If you need it, like when working to optimize the image in the way you want or need. But could you imagine, that there are people, who deliberately chose jps over raw files? Even pros, that send bloody unaltered and compressed JPG? FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PRESS? HOLY COW, THEY MUST BE AMATEURES NOT TO HANDLE 42MP 16BIT RAW FILES!! They have something going for them: consistency and a mind towards exposure. Shooting jpg means thinking about what you want in terms of exposure and not underexpose to avoid any clipping and boost exposure +5EV on your crazy awesome 135 FF camera files... No. OOC JPGs have severe limitations. You just cannot pull them that much in post like raw files and will see artifacts much sooner. Still, I can pull out one stop of highlights on my Fuji JPGs, if needed. So if you do a good job on exposing your image, you still have some room for modifications! And no, JPGs are not extreme lossy. I would bet that you could not tell the difference in print of moderately processed JPG and RAW file. Just my opinion. Pixel peeping drives you mad.