Maurice

Because X-E2 users are all jumping to upgrade to the X-T10 now? No .. If anything, it only gives users a good excuse to buy a new lens instead EITHER way, so Fuji might as well go for the option that improves customer satisfaction and loyalty. Offer new firmware. Anyway, however you want to explain it, fact is that Fuji is gaining lots of traction by what they're doing, and this will only benefit them in the long run. It's not such a strange concept you know. Up to a certain point you expect your laptop/desktop, or smartphone to continue to get updates, why not your camera.

When it actually starts metering by half-pressing the shutter .. ?

Happy customers ?

The old LTM version is horrible on digital, and it makes no sense using 4.5/15 on apsc. Not when there is a 2/12 for less, or 2.8/12 and 2.8/14 with AF for a little more. They released the v3 to fix the performance on digital, basically for the FF A7's specifically, in like no time at all. That's how horrible it was, they just had to fix it immediately! The old LTM is fantasic on film with the Bessa L though, that's what it was made for (!!) It doesn't have the color fringing problems on film, and the extreme vignetting is part of the deal and actually useful for film negatives.

Welcome ! Plenty of Dutchies around here. Photoshop is for retouching, best to use Lightroom for 99% of normal Raw post processing. Or if you want to get really serious, Capture One Pro, or Iridient (Mac only), or ..

I wonder if Windows 10 has made it easier at all to built a Windows version? Didn't they make programming easier somehow, or is that just across devices but not across systems .. ?

You already have the RAF, that's what you tested in Aftershot no? I don't remember where i got it from originally. There is a whole lot of difference between those two to my eyes. Apart from the slightly warmer white balance, there seems to be more separation between different color foliage rather than just all being green for starters, and it doesn't have the dark edge halos, while the patch of shadow on the upper right completely lacks detail to name a few. Of course your definition of 'a lot' might be different from mine, i spent way too much time pixel peeping, but i'm also not making it up! Please feel free not to worry about it like i do. Maybe you like Aftershot's default rendering better, but that's mostly just a matter of settings probably.

Those thin branches/twigs are there, more clearly than they were before, but indeed any imperfections might be more obvious. I suspect that if they manage to get every bit of detail out some day that will also include some more noise. Indeed you can already see it in your example above in the patch of open blue sky. Of course the difference is that you can decide for yourself how much of it you want to have denoised, and then this will be down to the quality of the denoiser of choice rather than trying to fix the damage done by bad interpolation. With more information available it should be easier for the software to distinguish between detail or noise, for both DNR or sharpening, and combined. Even things like selective color editing, or black and white conversions with simulated color filters etc should perform better around edges in the finer details. Also high iso's should have noticeably more color detail. (though lowering the color noise reduction nearly all the way down fixes a lot of that already)

A hacker somebody who knows code probably could without too much trouble, theoretically. But until then, we can not.

Ah so that's LR6.1, thanks much. Seems to be the same as ACR9.1. As we've learned in that other topic, the blue channel causing edge halos around edges like trees against blue skies and such probably improved slightly, but regular detail still the same mushy mush to my eyes. Hope that collaboration with Fuji they're promising will amount to something !

DNG is just a container, if the Raw data inside was changed it wouldn't actually be Raw anymore. So DNG is fine, every converter will still do its own thing like usual, and improve when they improve. Unless of course you checked the box for lossy compression, then the image will already be pixelated. I use DNG for its standard lossless compression that for some reason Fuji does not use on their files like everyone else does. And indeed, can't really judge fine details on a full image scaled down to web size. Personally I'm looking at if the Raw data is translated (to something humans can see) naturally/correctly, and without artifacts. Then it can be processed to taste (like sharpening) however one wishes. If the file hasn't been translated correctly then you can still do all those thing as it is raw after all, you can even be fine with it or not even notice, but it might look unnatural at detail level, worse with sharpening, and certain kinds of adjustments would reveal more unnecessary artifacts, things that neither the lens or sensor actually captured. Don't know how to show or explain it .. just have to learn how to spot these things i guess. Or avoid learning it at all, process your images as a whole, let the fine detail be what it is, keep shooting and be happy with the results! Aftershot seems to have mostly inverted halos, dark edges/shadows around edges instead of light, to create the illusion of detail .. painters do the same thing. But that part is more a matter of taste and settings. The way it rendered the base image is not too bad actually. Fairly natural .. considering. Less of a thick mush than with Lightroom (or however you want to describe it). Though not as finely detailed as with Capture One, or Iridient for example.

Ah you're right. This one blue color channel bug was fixed in CC / 6.1 and ACR9.1, but they are "still investigating methods to improve fine detail rendering and overall edge definition" in general.

Hi Ario, Personally, I see no improvement there in the slightest, only that you've used a lot more sharpening than i did, and the resulting overload of edge halos. It is remarkable alright. Half the image has become white with edge halos, edge doubling, and many more artifacts .. all false detail, meaning no gain, only loss.

Thanks! Way too much sharpening for my taste, though it does clearly show that LR still doesn't sharpen properly. The sharpening is one thing, but it's also clear that Capture One reveals a large variety of colored foliage (in a natural way, without sharpening to destruction!) that LR is still simply unable to retrieve at all. So sharpening what isn't there only makes it worse. Capture One 7.2E with more sharpening (default 140), just for reference.

Adobe Camera Raw 9.1 (for Photoshop CS6) doesn't get new 'features', but *Reduced color blur artifacts when processing Fujifilm X-Trans raw images* is under bug fixes! So i suppose old CS6 (and LR5) users like me can also enjoy the x-trans rendering improvements .. ! If you are willing to processes every image one-by-one through ACR. Adobe Camera Raw 9.1 (for Photoshop CS6) with ASTIA calibration profile:

Can somebody try this image in LR6.1? https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1uxo0oraouwg9vb/AADl5xovMw4f3jEHZRnwXJhda?dl=0 ( the image is not mine but from another forum, just works really well as a test subject! ) I cropped the bottom left corner (at 800x800px), i'll go first with old versions. Lightroom 4.3 (low sharpening setting) Capture One 7 (lowered sharpening) (oops for some reason resized these to 12MP)

Norman Reedus (from The Walking Dead) I don't think *all* the people mentioned above actually own one, so i guess movies are fine too? Hector and the search for Happiness:

Aaand again, completely missing the point. Nothing needed correcting or whatever you're doing. And talking long enough about it won't change it either, we'd just be going in circles. First time i'm hearing it. And i'm always skeptical with such claims because it could be a million things that makes one say that, especially with such big apertures lenses .. and xtrans.

Sorry Ace, but i'm not confusing anything. It seems to me you're confusing size of the bokeh, with smoothness of the bokeh. I was responding to your claim that "If smoother background blur is what you want, you should really be looking at longer focal lengths. 85mm (equivalent), at any aperture and APD or otherwise, is never going to give you as smooth a background as a 135mm equivalent. (I.e. the 90mm or 50-140mm lenses.)" which is still false. While it seems that you do understand what's going on. You're looking at it the wrong way round. Of course the APD filter does not solve anything in a situation where any lens with decent background separation already produces a smooth background. In your example the non-APD version looks the same, and even the 55-200mm looks great. Point is, it may be rare that the APD filter can show its strength to smooth out hard edges when there are any, but it is ONLY an APD filter that can solve this kind of 'problem' the way it does, anytime it needs to, when nothing else can. So yes like nothing else. Using a long focal length might give you bigger highlights, but it does not soften any edges. You may argue that if those two lenses were on the table, one would benefit more from the 'bigger' bokeh 'all the time', than the more rare occasion that highlights become a problem, and indeed i would rather have the 90mm myself for many reasons (it's cheaper, and has way more diverse applications for me), but that was not the question !! That's what the other topic is for. By the way, here is a graph that shows the theoretical blur disk size of the Fujinons. The 56/1.2 still 'beats' the 90/2. http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/203-theoretical-background-blur-in-fujinon-lenses-incl-90mm-f2/

Yes! Mirrorless adapters for SLR lens mounts are dwarf planet size! But that's just an estimate of course ..

Not the problem, obviously. The M42>EOS adapters are 1mm, you don't notice they're there. They're not really adapters, more like lens converters. The 'mirrorless' adapters are 1 million meters in size, more than some of the 50's themselves are! So just one of those is fine thanks.

The APD version can actually end up a little sharper at times i hear. But lets say no difference. ( you've read http://www.fujirumors.com/xf-56mm-apd-vs-xf-56mm/ ? )

Indeed. Takumars are always great, plus they look great and feel great. But it can be any old 50/1.8'ish lens really, i rarely look for something that specific, mostly just those that happen to fall on my path. Because i have a rule that i only buy things that i can pick up personally. That way i always know what i'm getting, and as a bonus it puts some sort of a brake on my GAS. One thing i hate about M42 though is the screw mount, that takes a long time. If you have more than one (eventually) that can get annoying. So one way to solve that is actually to get a EOS adapter for your camera, and then put a M42 to EOS adapter on every M42 lens that you use regularly. That way you've basically soft-converted all your lenses to a convenient Canon EF bayonet mount.

Well i would take it, but it depends on what you want of course. It becomes a more difficult question when you also have the 90/2 or 50-140mm and a price difference to consider, but since it's "for free", personally i would take the APD. But that doesn't mean you should. Because it is possible that you just don't like that ultra-smooth background when it 'happens', some people say it looks like photoshop blur. Cons: Trouble with phase detect (allegedly!) Tiny loss of light (who cares, DoF unchanged) More expensive (does not apply here) Pros: More valuable (fact) Different (if you like that kind of thing) Sometimes it *can* produce bokeh like nothing else (like it or not)

Again, not true. What the APD filter does cannot be solved with a longer focal length. As said, it requires specific conditions all coming together to benefit from it. With indeed shooting at F1.2 being one of them, but that is all part of the deal, and most people that buy such a fast lens will want to use it wide open! I'm not saying everybody should get the APD version if they could, more like the opposite. Only do it if you understand its perks! But as to the reasons why, there is just too much false information going around, clearly. https://ivanjoshualoh.wordpress.com/2015/05/18/please-to-meet-you-mr-bokeh/