flysurfer

Leica is already using the same Sony sensors as Fuji. Not in the M, of course.

Which makes it practically smaller and more compact. The additional height is only at the viewfinder. I already held it next to my X-E2.

The X-T10 is smaller than the X-E1, so better fits into a pocket or bag.

We can certainly make it part of the workshop in Santa Barbara. The topic has also been covered in forums and blogs, but in the end, folks always want to hand out (or receive) recipes and presets, which I find unsound. I guess some bloggers are even in the business of selling Lightroom presets. Never in my life have I used a LR sharpening preset, and to me, that's the first step towards successful X-trans sharpening. Use those 4 sliders to sharpen the actual image at hand. Heck, even Fuji uses different sharpening parameters in their JPEG engine for Provia and Pro Neg. Hi. It's easy to spot, but I have never seen it mentioned anywhere.

X-Pro1 stopped being the best (as in most capable) camera with the X-E2. It's still the flagship model (as it's still the only model occupying the "Pro" flagship line), but even at sea, flagships can get pretty old. They may still be big and impressive, but when it comes to win the battle, a new, modern destroyer might just do a better job.

Finally. Long delayed to get the X-T10 and FW 4 into the news section.

To be honest, I am quite happy with my LR performance. I even made it part of my workshops, because I started to feel stupid with everybody telling me that LR was so bad. Here's what we do: My delegates bring me difficult RAWs that we process in Iridient Developer (which is supposed to be really good) and Lightroom (which is supposed to be really bad). Then we compare at 100%, 200%, 300%, 400%... and in the end, the delegates always agree that the LR processing shows just as much (or even more) detail than the Iridient 3 version. It just took a little bit more effort.

The poll is funny as it clearly outlines that FR readers and forum users aren't the guys who are actually buying most of Fuji's cameras. In the real world, an X-T2 will outsell the X-Pro2 at least 4:1. This means that the X-T2 is basically subsidizing the R&D of the X-Pro2, as most of the Pro2's new features and technology will carry over to an X-T2. Btw, in my workshops, 75-80% of the participants are using an X-T1. The remaining 20-25% are using one of the other X camera models.

DPR?

What release? AFAIK, it still isn't there for the general buying public, so poorly is an understatement. I really feel for those who have been waiting for this software since December (it was readily available then) and still can't buy it.

Ha, so how can you tell your readers that they are a "must read"?

Let's hope you are also ready for a bunch of intensive First Looks this Monday.

This sounds like a rather self-absorbed statement, and it's also pretty distasteful display of verbal non-manners. Luckily, each member of "the world" is perfectly able to decide on their own what lenses they need.

It looks better.

Well, then. Let's try to minimize confusion, as you are mixing a few things together that aren't really interrelated or relevant to the topic. First of all, exposure metering is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is your exposure. Exposing right is the job of the photographer. It's not the camera's job at all. Metering may be the camera's job, if you decide not to use an external meter. However, exposure metering isn't responsible for your exposure, just like the speedometer in your car isn't responsible for you driving too slow or too fast. If things go wrong, you get the ticket, not the car. Of course, there are two different exposures at work: (1) exposing the sensor (and hence the RAW file) with photons in a way that optimizes dynamic range (for the intended purposes) and shot noise, and (2) exposing an end result (JPEG, TIFF) in a RAW converter from the RAW file. This example is perfectly exposed for the sensor. The only thing I would have made different is using a smaller aperture in order to increase DOF. However, the relevant parts are in focus, so this file is perfectly usable, and it's also nicely exposed to the relevant highlights (aka the cap on the head). Of course, adaptive exposure during RAW conversion is a different story, especially when we enjoy the freedom of an ISOless sensor. Thanks to advanced sensor technology, we can become little Ansel Adams clones in our digital lightroom (hence the beautly of the name Adobe Lightroom) and assign different zones to different parts of the image, either selectively or globally. What we do in the digital lightroom (aka the RAW converter) is often the more important part of exposing an image, especially in an ISOless world, where adaptive digital gain is replacing old-fashioned (think Canon) analog signal amplification. We call this process tone-mapping, and we do it ourselves, we do not press "Auto" buttons, just like we don't shoot JPEG-only in SR+ mode. We just don't, because we want to take control over the process. This example requires a slight overall contrast and exposure push, and possibly a slight reduction of whites and highlights to compensate for this. After all, it's the dark face we are after, not the bright cap. You can also use tone-curves along with Lightroom's adaptive exposure controls. That said, none of this has any relation to the original topic at hand, which was false colors. In Lightroom, it's quickly handled with color NR settings. An aggressive 100/0/100 setting does the job, w/o the dire consequences some might fear. X-Trans is a different beast and less prone to color noise than Bayer cameras, so using these sliders in an aggressive way to fight false colors is often not a problem. Brian used to recommend aggressive slider action in earlier versions of Iridient, as well. Of course you can use C1, Iridient, Lightroom, AccuRAW, Aperture, Photo Ninja, Silkypix/RFC or one of the open source converters. Just remember that none of them is perfect, and each will have different issues with different images. I own and use all of the mentioned converters, so I couldn't care less what other people use (fanboyism is a terrible disease). However, it's important to base your buying decision on knowledge and experience with the available options, because things are not always what they seem. Just because it's on the Internet doesn't make it true, not even when it's shared a million times.

We'll see. Hope for the best, expect the worst. Works every time.

Hoping for an X-T2 with XF200mmF2 and 1.4x / 2x converters. I'll put those to good use for sure.

I understand that the forum etiquette is already going down the drain, so out I am from this thread.

I'd welcome a sensor based IS.

It's basically a creative effect mode like those Advanced Filters or the Motion Panorama mode. These are all JPEG-only.

Replacing the RAW composite with a JPEG composite adds the benefit that the 2 merged images can use different ISO settings, different DR settings and different JPEG parameters. So this was a deliberate choice. Personally, I found the RAW implementation of EXR I interesting, but EXR II's way of doing things is more flexible.

That's unfortunate. Brian spent weeks improving the film simulations. I had the honor to help, and I think Brian's "unofficial" Fuji colors now look better and are more accurate than the "official" Fuji film simulations in Lightroom and RFC EX 2. Btw, the latter will soon receive the promised update to support all X camera models with film simulations.

In any case, ending the X10/20/30 line doesn't necessarily mean that there can't be Xxx cameras in the future. There are always options, time will tell.

I think it's unclear if Fuji would/should continue this line with a 1" sensor, given that the competition has already switched to larger sensors (MFT or even APS-C). Currently, the only PDAF enabled 1" sensor available is Aptina's family of 1" sensors (of Nikon 1 fame). I am not convinced that this sensor type is a good fit for the DNA and target audience of the X10/20/30 line of cameras. It's basically a video machine with fast readout, and its DR capabilities may or may not be suitable for X-Trans, but at least it would be fast enough for sure. OTOH, Sony's 1" sensor would lead to serious performance degradation. Our shootout between the X30 and the Sony RX100Mk3 clearly demonstrated that the Sony, apart from mere sensor size, doesn't stand a chance against the X30 in pretty much every major aspect, be it AF performance, EVF resolution, EVF frame rate, EVF lag, EVF dynamic range or JPEG engine quality/performance. This essentially means that Sony's 20 MP 1" CDAF-only sensor is a slow performer and hence not a very good choice for a camera manufacturer who's setting benchmarks with regards to EVF lag and EVF DR. This was probably Fuji's main internal engineering reason to drop the initially planned 1" Sony sensor for the X30 in favor of Toshiba's old but trusted 2/3" sensor, which is based on an original Fujifilm design that predates Fuji's sale of their sensor manufacturing business to Toshiba.

In this particular case, Iridient Developer can lead to stellar results thanks to its 3 choices of X-Trans demosaicing. Picking Smooth demosaicing in concert with Iridient Reveal sharpening works for me. Here, I used Iridient's Classic Chrome emulation with a few Lightroom tweaks of the resulting 16-bit TIFF: