immo_p

The effect is very dependent on the angle and the position of the sun - very low sun (just before sunset) leads to it easily, especially with certain lenses like the 56mm/1.2, it happens most easily with this one. But i.e. in the mountains, with the sun high up, it does not happen at all.

It's mostly customer perception and conditioning. For many people that come from smartphones or compacts, the SLR style is the "real camera" look, so they go for it when they upgrade...

I think it still holds up pretty well to be honest...the EVF works fine (I like it better than my X-T1 sometimes), it's reliable...2017 should be fine...

The 18-55 is very good for a so-called kit lens, with only some minor weakness at the long end. But I got into Fuji from the 35mm 1.4 as my only lens, which is a brilliant choice overall (despite being noisy) and having only one prime definitely changes your photographic view. The 35/2 is more modern and faster in focusing, but you lose a stop of light and the distortion is higher (but digitally corrected in camera). Would be the alternative if you need weather resistance and quick focusing more than highest apertures. Whatever you choose, you can't go wrong. I'm a fan of high aperture and low light, so it was obvious for me to start with the 35mm.

You'd need to upgrade to CC or 6...the only way.

I think the fine detail looks better now...but maybe it's just me, nobody commented on it. My previous 100% detail sharpening preset looks a bit "too much" now in some cases so I tuned it down and foliage etc. was still fine. But maybe it's wishful thinking blurring my mind?

Same here. Thumbnails load way faster now. A step in the right direction.

I know, but I still find it astonishing that a zoom can stand its ground in that respect vs the excellent primes. Have never used the 90mm since it's too specific for me, but since it has been a favorite for many portrait shooters, there must be a reason.

For me, the reason was probably that I had just started photography and working with the X system...so selling it was probably a bit premature. I was simply not used to use that focal length and primes in general. Actually liked the compact size and image quality.

My X100T has never shown anything like that...it's just a bit "dreamy" wide open and for macro under F4? But nothing like that asymmetrical sharpness issue...will you send it in again?

For me, it was the 18mm. Sold it therefore, since I got the 18-55 in the meantime. Of my current lenses, probably the 56mm. I love the lens, but it's not a lens I use everyday.

Interesting review...although a lot of copy & paste on the viewfinder. Do not agree on the landscape colors for Fuji in general. But in most cases, he has some fair points about each camera he reviews, and a lot of subjective exaggerations and complaints that are not consistent. He for sure knows how to stay interesting and drive traffic...

I agree, StephaneB...and sometimes patterns are creating moirées in certain converters, too. I encountered it when taking pics of Hamburg's new music hall, made from many red bricks. In Lightroom I had a moiree that I could not get rid of, in Iridient it was perfectly fine (and sharper).

The best market in Europe to buy a camera is probably Switzerland, believe it or not. Cameras are cheaper than in Germany.

I still consider the 50-140 the best lens in the lineup - have not checked the F2/90 though. Sharp like a prime plus amazing OIS, even wide open. You will not be disappointed for sure. I thought about selling the 56 since I don't use it much anymore and don't necessarily need 1.2...but I love the aesthetics. ;-)

Between my X-T1 and my girlfriends A7, I always found the skin tones from Sony more warm, but the white balance also more on the "yellow" side. As for sharpness, I agree with addicted2light - Fuji RAW needs quite an mount of sharpening (JPG is very crisp), Sony is sharp already.

I also apparently had a less than stellar copy of the 18-55 - very blurry at the tele end (and with 1/1000s, handshake is probably unlikely), even stopped down. I talked to some guys and they said that the OIS might have been the reason. Anyway, sold it - the 16-55 is way bigger, but the image quality is outstanding and it feels more solid, Being twice as heavy as the 18-55 iis one reason, but it's more details like the more defined aperture ring clicks that really define the lens. Can only recommend it if weight is not a concern.

Hm...I've never used the X-Pro1, but I have used the X-T1 for quite a while. My comments: - Dynamic range: I agree, shadows can be recovered to a large extent, highlights are blown more easily. It gets better if you shoot with higher ISO and use the 200%/400% DR settings. - WIFI: You shoot RAW only? I never tried that setting. In most cases, the JPGs are perfectly fine for most web applications, and the app works fine. - Lenses: The 35mm 1.4 was one of the first lenses...I also found it a bit soft wide open, but it improves quickly stopped down to 2.0 or 2.8. I can live with it, actually like it for certain applications. I've never became a fan of the 18mm, sold mine, but also here - one of the original 3 lenses. Never used 23mm (X100T instead). I can only recommend the Fujinon XF 50-140 2.8, it is truly a great lens, on par with most top primes. It's a tough comparison with the latest A7R II...that is indeed a beast, newest sensor and all bells and whistles. I like the A7 series as well, less in terms of ergonomics though, where Fuji feels more natural to me at least. But the image quality is great, was already good in the first one except high ISO.

That's what happens when I apply the simulations in Lightroom as well. The film simulations have a very big effect on the histogram, to an extent where highlights/shadows can't be recovered anymore.

Can't go wrong with you X-T1. Enjoy it...X-T10 would have been my suggestion if bought new, but with an X-T1 for 800 you have an even better camera.

Great comparison/overview - thanks!

Thanks for the answer...I also noticed that it happens more easily when I use the Fuji film simulations, maybe the answer is hidden in their settings? Don't know how to find out though.

Hi everybody, I'm a bit puzzled by some observations using Lightroom, hope somebody has any insights. The Histogram tends to show me clipping warnings in either highlights or shadows very, very often/early (using both X-T1 or X100T) - although I can still see details in these areas. If I open the same image in Iridient or look at the respective pic in camera, the amount of clipping seems to be considerably lower. With my girlfriend's Sony A7, I don't see clipping warnings that early, but if they are shown it is actually true and something is blown out. Any idea what the reasons might be? Default color space? Fuji having some kind of add'l headroom that Lightroom does not interpret correctly? Would really appreciate your expertise here... Cheers Immo

It really depends what you wants. The 16-55 or 18-55 would for sure cover most needs and you'd be ready for many situations. Personally, I was very happy just with an X100T - of course it restricts you in certain ways, but it can also be quite liberating.

I see the pictures of both constantly, since I use X-T1 and my girlfriend has the A7 (1st gen)...my impressions: Both have their strong pros and cons and the images have a different character, not only due to the different sensor sizes. - Sony tends to look a bit warmer. - I disagree in regards to the ISO performance - noise is already more visible at lower ISO and looks less "elegant" than in Fuji. - I agree with the highlight rolloff performance and level of detail of the Sony, plus RAWs need very little sharpening in comparison. - Also, the Sony looks a bit more balanced in terms of exposure without manual adjustments. - The Fuji excels with better usability, lots of dynamic range and room for shadow/highlight recovery, way better AF performance and a great low ISO performance. I can still live with ISO 6400 results. - Still have the feeling the Fuji needs more light/ higher ISO to achieve a similar shutter speed in identical conditions (see your pic, I'm sure there is a scientific explanation...sensor size? Lens diameter?). - Colors and skin tones feel a bit colder by default, even with identical WB. - I need to be more disciplined not to overexpose bright areas with my XT-1 - Great JPGs, if WB is correct. Both are great...just need a different treatment/approach. For me personally, the Fuji is simply more intuitive to shoot and I love the results. Will be interesting how the new generations (A7 II and X-Pro II) perform in comparison.