madmaxmedia

Besides, as long as you use the properly calibrated USB cable to transfer your images, the JPEG's will be fine. Anyways- as long as you are happy with the ACROS output, then shooting RAW + JPEG will give you the best of both worlds. A great JPEG right out of camera without needing to do a lot of PP, plus a RAW for peace of mind. The only reason for going through all the trouble of trying to match up the RAW to the ACROS, is if you are dissatisfied with the ACROS file for whatever reason. Otherwise, stash the RAW's and I'm sure someone on the internet will create a nice set of presets to download later.

CORRECTION- It is definitely faster than 3 FPS, when I compare high and low drive mode in AF-C there is definitely a difference. When set to high drive mode, AF-S is faster than AF-C so it's not quite 7 FPS. But definitely better than 3 FPS.

The price points that have been thrown around are not what I'd call cheap, more expensive than the current price of the Ricoh GR. Cheaper perhaps than the Nikon Coolpix A when it was released (but that was a a couple of years ago), and that model is discontinued IIRC and readily available used on EBay for $300-$400. If the X70 is north of $700 then I would expect it to have a metal body, and feel excellent in the hand (comparable to X10/20/30). I don't know if we have the exact depth of the camera, but from the pictures it looks pretty slim. The physical dimensions actually look pretty close to the Coolpix A, which is pretty pocketable. I think the market for this camera is much different than the X-A1/2. It is a premium specialist camera, not many general consumers are looking for single focal length, wide angle APS-C camera- they use their phones for this already. But like the GR and the Coolpix A, the X70 is a great compact 2nd body for existing Fuji X System users who would like a 'take everywhere' compact that maintains the image quality and characteristics of their larger gear. I imagine that using the 'older' 16MP sensor allows them to use premium build quality without going too high in price, while still delivering great IQ:size. OTOH if someone wants such a second Fuji camera on a budget, an X-A1 with 27mm 2.8 would be a nice choice.

I've never seen this added in a firmware update. 60 FPS dialed down to 30 or 24 FPS in post makes for pretty good slow motion, just not time-bending super-slo-mo. I don't know that the Panasonic cameras can even do 120 FPS yet, at least at 1080p. They are basically the leaders in video for mirrorless cameras.

The one thing I'd like to see Fuji try to improve somehow is parallax error. I think it has to be done mechanically somehow, or some sort of hardware modification or addition to the system. Currently the moving frame lines cannot be complete accurate because the camera can only guess at distance to what's at the edge of the frame. The perspective and required parallax compensation depends on the entire scene (I think???), but the camera can adjust based on distance to the focus point only. Here's how I think it is now- Subject (focus object) and background both far away- easy, no parallax correction required (or very little.) Subject and background both very close- easy, can derive frame line from subject distance for proper parallax correction. Subject near/background far- Tricky, camera only has distance data for near subject (result in overcompensating frame line) Subject far/background near-Tricky, camera only has distance for far subject (result in under-compensating frame line) I wouldn't be surprised if Fuji developed something to improve electronic frame lines since the X-Pro1 was released. It will help cement the X-Pro2 as the top of the line Fuji X camera.

Hey, did you happen to go to Piémanson? I read this article and it seemed like a fascinating place, reading your post reminded me again of it (some great photos in the article too, pulled from a photo book)- http://roadsandkingdoms.com/2014/last-days-of-a-wild-beach-qa-with-vasantha-yogananthan/

Honestly, I wonder if most of the general public (who uses or is interested in Fuji X system) really knows or has a strong opinion about Fuji kaizen and the X-E2 anyway. For example, the biggest Fuij sh--storm was the X100 SAB issue, and probably majority of X100 owners never knew about it, even if there was a sizable number of X100 owners/followers discussing it on the internet. I think Fuji generally wants to firmware-improve its cameras when possible, AND as resources permit. So new camera development will always take precedence (seems reasonable since they need to sell cameras to stay in business!), and now just happens to be the time that Fuji has some resources to put towards developing a new X-E2 firmware.

His theoretical implementation would be fastest, you'd just spin the camera dial to adjust the 'dummy' aperture whenever you adjusted the physical aperture on the lens. But no matter, you're right it's not something we'll actually see. I just don't understand why people are so insistent on telling him that it's such a HORRIBLE idea. Like you said, it's a community. I think it's a good idea, just not a practical one (I'd also probably forget to adjust the dummy value most of the time, and end up with incorrect EXIF info anyway!!) I would be 100% happy with whatever the X-E2 hardware actually allows. People have said much of the relevant 'guts' of the X-E2 are the same as the X-T1 and X-T10, which would mean that all of AF improvements and electronic shutter might be theoretically possible. If that's the case, that's what I want to see since the X-E2 is technically a current model. The possible future X-E3 will have its own hardware improvements that will set it apart anyway (as part of the X-Pro2 generation.) If it turns out that there are significant differences in the X-E2 hardware from the X-T1/XT10 and none of the improvements are possible, then no hard feelings whatsoever.

Well, it's not necessary to rain on his parade... It's nice to be able to record the correct aperture in the EXIF data, just as Fuji allows you to set the focal length of the lens. People post photos on Flickr, photography web sites, etc. and people often ask what aperture the shot was taken at, because the EXIF data reports F/0 or something like that. I agree that it could easily cause confusion for some users. But there's no reason to argue with him about whether its useless or not, it's just something he'd like. It's obviously useless to you, but not to some.

Yes, it seems like you would gain a bit of extra sharpness in the near distance, and lose a little sharpness in the far distance. I think Rico (not surprisingly) is correct in his assessment of Fuji CoC. When I read about traditional CoC values, I read about taking into account viewing distance from printed image, etc. so there is a lot of wiggle room generally speaking. But I think if DOF and hyper focal shooting are important to you, you should experiment and then determine how far you can push the near focus distance and still get acceptable sharpness to infinity.

Those are beautiful! I love the 'fairy tale' look to the images... I have a Yashica 50mm f/1.8 that I will give a whirl, I don't have any longer (but still fast) lenses to try. I have the Fuji 50-230mm, but I think that would be too slow. Were most of them shot wide open/near open?

Being that this is the case, I think personal experimentation with different CoC values and some controlled test shooting will help each person determine what is acceptable level of sharpness. Maybe the Fuji value is too stringent for some, or maybe not. But then you can plug in whatever CoC value roughly works best for you into an app like Tack Sharp.

I really hope by "new AF-System" they also mean the improved focus tracking in continuous high mode that is available in the X-T1 and X-T10...if the relevant hardware is the same then I guess that it should be possible.

This lens is incredibly cheap on EBay now, it has become the analog of the Olympus 40-150mm f/4-5.6 (which is even cheaper and smaller.) It has great practical value for shooting your kid's sports events, wildlife, etc., if not quite the creative tool that many of the Fuji lenses are.

A focal reducer isn't practically possible with rangefinder lenses, because there is not enough room for the focal reducer glass in between the sensor and the lens glass. The Metabones Speedbooster has 4 elements, and the other versions should be similar too. http://www.metabones.com/assets/a/stories/Speed%20Booster%20White%20Paper.pdf Also, the L39 to M42 adapter won't provide infinity focus when adapted via the L39 to M42/M42 focal reducer/adapter, as an L39 lens (which is Leica rangefinder screwmount) needs to be much closer to the image sensor than the M42 mount allows. I think it would essentially be like having a macro extender, and you could only take very close-up photos.

Really nice example! I really like the look of larger formats, and this method duplicates it on smaller format cameras. I have read more than once that the DOF drop-off is quicker in larger formats, which is a different phenomenon having more or less DOF. But looking at this photo, maybe the DOF drop-off has more to do with focal length of lens? Because I feel it looks very much like something shot with medium or large format. It would be a fun feature to have a camera be able to do this in-camera. They can already do something similar with panoramas, here you have essentially at the end a 5 x 5 grid of photos. BTW-what is CL- Continuous Low?

Hi Paul, I think it has to be a JPEG engine issue only, if the workaround of shoot RAW at -2 EXP COMP, and then push-processing 2 stops in-camera eliminates the problem completely. What the workaround does is basically apply Fuji ISO 1600 NR, to ISO 6400 images. And the resultant JPEG's looks absolutely fine. It's possible that they might have incrementally more noise than first-gen cameras due to different sensor, but even if so, that's not what people are complaining about- Fuji JPEG high-ISO noise looks incredibly organic- very fine with little blotchiness or harsh digital-looking artifacts, or chroma noise. Does the X-A1 or X-M1 have first or second gen XTrans sensor? Because they also have the waxy skin effect.

I guess there are a couple of possibilities here- 1. Could Fuji improve the X-E2 tracking autofocus to the level of the X-T1/X-T10, if they presumably have the same relevant hardware? 2. Could Fuji add the new AF modes from the X-T1/X-T10, if they presumably have the same relevant hardware? Would #2 even really matter, if they couldn't do #1? (since these new modes seem mostly for tracking subjects.) There is clearly a Fuji precedent for this, in that they significantly improved the X100 autofocus performance. Actually, they did this even though the X100S had already been released. The X-E2 is actually the current model. When they improve software algorithms for autofocus, etc., it is nice to offer firmware upgrades to other models that can utilize the new algorithms. If they don't do any of these, I will still be pretty happy with my X-E2. But if they do both of these, and also fix waxy skin, I would be really, really happy!

Jano, I am glad your well-written thread is on FujiRumors main page. I really hope this gets a good look by Fuji, although there has been plenty of other complaints and there has been no response so far. Really, it is as simple as Jano describes. Chris- here is the issue. The original Fuji X cameras- X100, X-E1, X-Pro1- show none of these problems, with these cameras I don't think I could imagine a better JPEG engine even if I tried. Fuji then "fixed what wasn't broken" with the next generation of cameras, and now we have waxy skin at high ISO. There's nothing Fuji has to even develop or improve to avoid the problem, they just have to give BACK users a little more control over NR, as we had before. IMO, Fuji's JPEG engine is actually still the best, I have my X-E2 Auto-ISO set at 3200 so the issue is more tolerable for me. The multiple ISO 6400 examples I've seen on the internet all look really bad.

Maybe you were drunk and walked through the wrong door??? Perhaps that's why everyone was so untalkative!