frod

surely the compression is controlled by the fine/normal setting? Try changing it to normal and back again.

http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-articles/lens-technique/all-about-nikon-vr.html

And Fuji call the 14mm ultra-wide angle. http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujinon_lens_xf14mmf28_r/ "Designed to capture images rich in perspective, this ultra wide-angle lens with its extreme angle of view is the ideal choice" If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

14mm is ultra wide on aps-c. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_wide_angle_lens

just sounds like chromatic aberration? Normal in a prime, the camera jpegs should remove it mostly but you'll have to do it yourself with raws.

I think a lot of people think landscape = wide and end up disappointed by the results. I remember doing this myself with a Sigma zoom in my Nikon days. Wide lenses emphasise the foreground and send the middle distance even further away and vanish the far distance into almost nothing. Not to mention the distortion is incredibly unflattering for people not in the centre of the frame. They are not really everyday lenses unless you make that your style, and the Fuji options are quite expensive for what could end up being sparingly used lenses.

it depends how you shoot. You won't be able to use it on an x-e1 like you would a DSLR.

the bokeh is appalling

I'm sure not obscuring the ovf was a factor but I seriously doubt if it was the main point; the f/1.4 hardly encroaches on the framing guidelines except for macro where the parallax error makes framing impossible anyway. This is the #1 myth of the 35mm pair.

Just cut to the chase and get the 23mm and 56mm ;-)

I'm considering subscribing to Capture One. Worth a thought perhaps.

The 56mm APD is the ultimate tool for this requirement, however it is not cheap.

I'm not a birder myself but as I understand it, you always need more reach. The 50-140 is a fantastic lens but it's pretty darn big and heavy for general use.

does it make sense to compare resolution results from different sensors? Even notwithstanding bayer vs x-trans. Not that ultimate sharpness is a panacea anyway.

The distortion corrections are precisely due to the optical problems. The camera is having to manipulate the pixels to remove the distortion issue, a process which gets more extreme as you get to the corners. It's also boosting the gain in the corners to counteract the vignetting, which leads to noise.

I bet you could lanczos upscale a 16MP to 24MP and nobody would be any the wiser.

very nice write up Quincy. Post of the month, if not year. we only really see benefits in wide lenses being smaller, and I'm sure that's as much glass<->sensor distance as sensor size. I suspect wanting TC options doesn't help either, given how they protrude into the barrel, implying a rear element that is quite far from the sensor.

I don't need anything more than my X-Pro1 provides me already, and I don't imagine this camera would make a difference to my photographs equal to the cost of upgrading to it. The list of improvements is long but relatively incremental; I'm sure it's a better camera but I just don't do the kind of photography that would benefit from the improvements.

As usual, the best advice is to choose the lenses you require first and foremost. The system naturally follows from that choice.

and no shoulder surgery bills either!

Nikon are not somehow immune to the exchange rate anyway, they will just already have sold more stock in prior to the brexit vote. Of course, perhaps people SHOULD ask why go full frame. It's certainly not a panacea (been there done that, hated it).

I think the advent of the newer sensors and AF performance will start to bring more long lenses through. They were a tough sell before; why put up with nearly the same weight as a DSLR and inferior AF? But that will surely change over time now that the XT-2 in particular is here.

1:1 macro lens “XF80mmF2.8 R LM OIS WR Macro” So OIS is in, as is compatibility with the teleconverters. Definitely interested to see the performance of this.

Do you really need a Fuji lens for macro? Surely any adapted lens could do a job, AF is hardly important.

The only way you can avoid that kind of distortion is to use a fisheye and print onto the inside of a sphere