adzman808

The X-Pro2 got new firmware! Here's my brief overview of what all the new bits and pieces do! Enjoy http://adambonn.com/my-love-affair-with-the-fujifilm-x-pro1/xp2-sixty-one/

For this week I'm going to share some thoughts on the GFX, well some thoughts of some of things I've seen/heard written & said! http://adambonn.com/my-love-affair-with-the-fujifilm-x-pro1/xp2-sixty/

Another view of Porto Hazy Beautiful Porto Light by Adam Bonn, on Flickr

Beach Ghosts by Adam Bonn, on Flickr Because things can work out differently if you look at them in a different way

As Leica loaned me a M240 for a SHORT amount of time a few weeks back, it seemed only natural that I continued my series on the often made comparisons between the 2 cameras. Last time I looked at the shooting experience between each camera, this week I look at the lens they lent me and wrap up what I really thought overall http://adambonn.com/my-love-affair-with-the-fujifilm-x-pro1/xp2-fifty-nine/

The sharpening algorithm in LR is not fixed, it's based on the camera, so (for example) adding an amount of '25' will yield different results on different files from different cameras

My €0.02: Any advice that amounts too "set your sharpening to xyz for all of your images" is just plain wrong Sharpening is about what's in the shot, and even what lens you used, none of the Fuji glass is blunt, but (for example) the 18mm can take more sharpening than some of the other lenses, because it's a bit softer as standard

As Leica loaned me a M240 for a SHORT amount of time a few weeks back, it seemed only natural that I continued my series on the often made comparisons between the 2 cameras. Last time I looked at the cachet between each brand, but now that I've had some quality time with an M, what did I really think? http://adambonn.com/my-love-affair-with-the-fujifilm-x-pro1/xp2-fifty-eight/

No I hadn't noticed But I just tested and mine does exactly the same thing as you describe. Expect a fix via FW i guess....

Well I don't always use one of the fuji film sims, and I quite frequently farm out a .tiff to a different app (eg on1 photo) so for me, raw is a must If you're making a decent job of raf sharpening (and I daresay you are) then IMO you'll best the sooc jpegs in a crop scenario If you're happy with sooc fuji colours, not cropping, not pixel peeping and doing a good job of exposure in camera, shooting scenes that don't surpass the DR of the jpeg engine, then there's less need for the raw. Best to shoot both imo and decide later, even if later means making different jpegs from the in camera convertor

The shadow/highlight settings effect the jpeg tone curve from the native jpeg engine within the camera For SOOC use these settings should be tempered against the selected film simulation, for example classic chrome has far harder shadows than pro neg std as default The dynamic range setting is something else, and in some circumstances have an impact on the raw file. The shadow/highlight settings have no impact on the raw file, but can be used to help judge raw exposure, namely that when you set shad -2 and highlight -2 the histogram will show more data before indicating clipping, this works best with a low contrast film sim, such as pro neg std

Yes they only make an effect on jpegs but they also change the histogram which can help with judging exposure for raw If you shoot raw, you can use the in camera raw convertor to make multiple jpegs from the same raf file, each one with different shadow/highlight settings. You can only do this one at a time though!

Continuing the White Balance series: In the final part we take a look at ways of working with White Balance and seeing colour! http://adambonn.com/my-love-affair-with-the-fujifilm-x-pro1/xp2-fifty-seven/

Some of it depends I think on what is meant by tools above their skill set Where as a GFX to shoot SOOC jpegs of say your dog sleeping on the couch is tech overkill for the task in hand, it also is worth noting that high end cameras give people a lot more scope for shadow/highlight detail, both SOOC and particularly in post from raw When it comes to what the photograph is of, it boils down to De gustibus non est disputandum (in my opinion) when it comes down to how well the shot was exposed, then high technology can be a helping hand. If someone buys a Leica M, then it seems that there's someone there to say, what a waste of money - my camera has more features and better IQ than that for 20% of the price, what now? Someone buys a GFX and people say, that's way more tech and IQ than you need, what a waste of money Is there supposed to be some sort of 'Goldilocks' camera, that's not to expensive, but not too good either? Also, the cachet of the Hasselblad XID/GFX/M can inspire people to up their game (as well as show off) as they feel that they want to get better And what about truly expensive professional cameras, like the Phase Ones, how good a pro should one have to be before the internet community accepts the individuals right to buy one? I used to be into motorbikes, and for sure there's a degree of FFS and eye rolling when one of the slowest guys on the trackday has the most expensive bike, but it is what it is and it's something to just accept IMO

As mdm said, A minus value in highlight tone darkens the highlights (and the opposite for a positive value - ie lightens the highlights) A minus value in shadow tone lightens the shadows (and the opposite for a positive value - ie darkens the shadows) If you set the camera to shoot RAW, then you can use the in camera raw convertor to experiment with these settings, and create a series a jpegs with different settings applied and chose the one you like the most

Milandro isnt making anything up! The original 3 XF lenses were all pretty small and light (I mean the 18/35f1.4/60) and subsequent lenses (bar the 27) got larger The 35/60 in particular are good optical performers. But people wanted better AF, which made the size grow People also want stella optical performance which made the size grow (because of physics and the APS crop factor) Now the tech is there for Fuji to make fast AF small lenses - the so called 'Fujicrons' but people are not happy that they're only F2 and/or that they're not as sharp as the F1.4 versions. But this what makes them small and light Personally I love 1.4 glass, but devils advocate.... Fuji only have 4 lenses that are faster than f2 (16/23/35/56) so the F2s are more in line with their range than people seem to give them credit Also, as much as I want a 35 f1 - we have to understand just how hard it will be to make such a lens Sure a 35/f1 will give DOF and FOV much like a 50 F1.4 on FF, but that doesn't change the fact it's still a 35mm lens. So for example Leica make a 35 F1.4, it has no weather sealing, no AF and costs north of £3000 Now factor in the Fuji version would have to be a stop faster, weather sealed and have blazing AF and we start to see the challenge of making such an optic in a cost effective way Fuji have both groups of people covered (the 1.4ers and the WR/fast AFers) in the same focal lengths - just not in the same lens

Continuing the White Balance series: This week we take a look at a way of taking some control back from the AWB automation of the camera, and circumnavigating the fact that different RAW software disagrees about Kelvin values! http://adambonn.com/my-love-affair-with-the-fujifilm-x-pro1/xp2-fifty-six/

Auto DR won't "automatically" select DR400 on the newer cameras, so you're only getting 1 (not 2) stops of highlight protection

And 6 years ago the top of the range Fujifilm camera was the HS20 They've come a long way!

I hate when you do that

Ah c'mon Rico.. I was using the macro thing as an example about the folly of choosing your camera based on rumours (and even OEM roadmaps) Besides... the purists will tell you the 60 isn't a true macro as it's only 1:2 (and they'd be right), the Zeiss is 1:1 but was never on the Fuji road map *and the 3rd isn't out yet - so spec subject to change :D *edit my bad - yes it was

Yes I want that fast 30ish lens too! There's always the Zhongi (spelling?) if one gets desperate (I've considered it...) IMO the way to look at it (YMMV) is that the current fast/big glass range won't be added too in the near future. But they're not going to stop producing the existing glass. So if a user is happy with the existent and fast 16/23/35/56 lenses then happy days. Effectively they're not taking anything away.... there's just some possibility that they won't deliver on a item that was only ever rumoured and never officially promised (iirc) As much as I'd love a super fast 35... it's the macro desirers that I feel sorry for!!! IIRC First it was going to be a 120 macro... then a 90, now an 80. And it still isn't here yet. And some (all???) of those configs actually appeared on the official roadmap, not just the internal/rumour mill one Imagine if you bought into the system thinking 'well there's no macro, but one will be along soon' and then waiting and waiting (Yes there's the macro rings)

you're going to be asked to provide samples Might be worth finding the best settings for the XT2, rather than just copy the XT1 ones. Generally excessive noise is caused by under exposure, or excessive brightening in post Also noise (and sharpness and colour) issues are very much in the eye of the beholder

Dust will always get in... you open the doors to fit the battery or SD card and there goes the dust resistance! I lot of user experiences with water ingress are down to luck and also the fact that if water gets into the camera, then it might take weeks or even months before corrosion makes a problem If you're chosing between 2 cameras with the same features and the same cost, but one is weather proof, and one isn't pick - pick the weather proof one But in a more real world scenario, its the other features that should draw your attention IMO, I asked Fuji just how weather proof their cameras were and they answered (paraphrasing here) that they can withstand a lot of rain, but dry them off asap because standing water on the body can seep in. That said I wouldn't take my Fuji into the shower or clean it under the tap!

How does it work? (if you don't mind me asking, well too late, but if you don't mind answering ) So your Fuji books are completely independent of Fuji? I have a reasonable relationship with Fuji Portugal (where I live) and they tell that each Fuji territory has its own way of working, and can do things pretty much as they please. Do you think that the GFX might attract a different type of user? For example less jpeg shooters (which would be a little ironic no? I can appreciate the mentality that you might not buy a camera like that not to shoot raw, but the sooc jpeg samples I've seen have been sublime) Also, assuming that existent MF users are probably pretty offay with cameras already, and know what they want and how to get it (...) might the uptake on your potential book be a little lower then regular X cameras? (Plus the lower sales volume) And finally *shameless plug* my wife is a professional translator, so 1) I've seen the pain of working with languages and 2) if you need something doing in (Brazilian) Portuguese.... (you never know!)