cug

Yeah, the XF35 f/1.4 is a bit noisy although I only really notice it in quiet indoor situations. I mainly shoot it outdoors in cities so it doesn't bother me. The new XF35 f/2 is a lot less noisy, but optically not as good. Pick your poison – or own both. ;-)

It's very similar for me in many ways. I try something new and I immediately find a lot of "flaws" and things that I don't like as much as the old ones. Then it grows on me. Then the time comes when the new features take over more value. And then the time comes when I don't want to go back to the old. This is very similar for me with many new products. Be that cars, motorcycles, cameras, phones, computers and so on. In that regard there is quite some numbing down happening as well. I get new phones, iPads, computers, screens ... all the time. I have a drawer full of "stuff", like a bunch of iPhone 6/6S/Plus/5/5S and so on. All just part of the job. Sometimes I'm thinking of going back to a feature phone for availability and an iPad mini for the rest.

Easy, stay away from the shower for about four weeks, sleep in your closes, keep the same clothes on for four weeks as well and pack your stuff in something like this and you'll be perfectly safe. Everything else is just fooling yourself. Pay attention to your surroundings, use a bag that closes with a non-simple mechanism and don't dress like a complete dork and you are about as safe as all the other tourists that will roam the same streets. Just one thing: it's not the bag that attracts attention, it's YOU.

Not moving your fingers does not make something ergonomic. Common misconception that the smallest amount of necessary movement between functions is the most ergonomically desirable is not quite correct. Ergonomic handling is partly the physical layout of controls, but also the physical distinction of controls for different tasks. There is a reason we have a steering wheel and gas/brake pedals in cars and haven't gone to a single joystick even though that might account for less movement of limbs necessary. Ergonomic controls need to account for intuitive use, and using two wheels for two-dimensional positioning isn't intuitive.

And the problem is bigger the longer the lens because make tiny movement and your subject is out of frame. I've just read a bit more about it and the X-Pro2 does support 3fps live view continuous shooting in EVF, same as the X-T1. Although the refresh rate and black out might be shorter due to the faster processor. I might get heat for that again, but let's face it: mirrorless cameras are crap for tracking erratic movements at ANY burst speeds, low or high doesn't really matter, both are practically useless. Tracking subjects that have a more predictable path is less of a problem with frame tracking and comes down to AF tracking capabilities and there you can generally say: the newer the camera the better it is. And AF tracking on modern mirrorless cameras has gotten really good. It's the frame tracking that poses the biggest issue there and manufacturers are working on that, shortening blackouts and providing higher FPS view finders with lower latencies.

Most mirrorless cameras (all that I'm aware of) don't show a live view from in the EVF when shooting at high burst rate. They show the last recorded burst frame, which means what you are shown in the EVF is lagging one photo behind. That's one of the reasons why these cameras aren't great for certain action with erratic movement. I believe in slow burst (3 frames per second) it does show a live view, but as I have pretty much given up on action shooting with the Fuji cameras, I'm not 100% certain and Fuji doesn't list it in the specs and I'm too lazy to search on the web for that now.

You mentioned you lost the cover recently, want to risk a few bucks and try this kit? http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00K8ROMTA

I read that you can't get to the SD cards with the case on, is that true? Is it hard to get on/off?

Nope. Not seriously.

Regarding glasses: good. Because the viewfinder of the X-Pro2 (and X100T for that matter) aren't great with glasses due to the very short eye point and very small rear element/opening.

I don't think that's fully true. The focal length is pretty much good for nothing and at the same time not terrible for anything. You need much more compositional creativity with a wide angle than with the more forgiving 35mm FoV, but that aside, because it is close to human eye (btw: that is said for 35, 40 as well as 50mm equivalents) it is stinking boring, I haven't said the results are boring, but using the thing is. It really comes down to the fact for me that this focal length that people call good for everything does absolutely nothing for me.

Yep. So not really helpful. Averages are just that – doesn't mean it fits a specific person. For me for example, 23mm (on APS-C) is stinking boring.

So? That's like saying "most people have shoe size EU43" to stick with my previous example.

I guess it's fine to wait for a lens if you have other lenses to use. But if you want to start the "Fuji adventure" waiting for the perfect thing will likely make you wait forever because there will always be something "better" on the horizon.

Hmpf. Let's take a look at that as I can't agree with much of what is in this post. XF27 f/2.8 It is very sharp across the frame. It used to be my second sharpest lens after the Zeiss Touit 50mm f/2.8. Mine is about as good across the frame as the XF23 f/1.4, only beaten clearly by the XF90 and the Zeiss. Other lenses might be better at a certain aperture or certain characteristic but as an average of apertures from f/2.8 to f/8 the 27 is one of the best lenses I have tested from the Fuji line up. It does drop of significantly from f/11 on though. It has a light barrel distortion which is well corrected in software, either in camera or Lightroom and also some coma but both aren't really problematic. There seems to be some significant spread between various XF27 lenses, I tested two of them and both were very close together, but there are other results on the net to be found which show weak edge performance which I can't reproduce with the lens I have here. So be aware and test the one you receive. XF35 f/1.4 and f/2 Between these two lenses there are reviews that show one or the other being stronger optically, I own both and can say that without a doubt the old f/1.4 beats the new f/2 lens easily in optical performance from f/4 on. Contrast, micro-contrast, center resolution, resolution across the frame, distortion are better on my f/1.4 than they are on my f/2. I have seen tests stating otherwise even though when looking closely at their examples, it shows that they actually get same results as myself. The f/2 is clearly a newer lens from Fuji, more solid barrel design, faster AF motor, nearly completely silent operation, tight aperture ring and the WR badge show this fairly clearly. Optically, the XF35 f/2 beats the old f/1.4 only at it's own wide open aperture and only in the wide corner area (not really close to the corner where the f/2 falls off pretty badly), which is kind of surprising – at f/2 the new lens shows more contrast in all parts of the except the center. The new XF35 f/2 is unfortunately absolutely terrible in terms of optical distortion correction. The barrel distortion is extreme. For landscapes between my two copies of the XF35 lenses the f/1.4 is better as it recovers much better over the whole frame from f/2.8 on where the two are comparable but from f/4 on the old lens shows clearly more details and more micro-contrast across the frame. Regarding AF performance, the new lens IS slightly better, but only slightly. The old lens makes a lot more "fuss" about focussing with a noisy motor and some squeaks here and there though making it "sound" slower. You also have to be REALLY careful when looking at reviews of the lenses as all Fuji lenses seem to have variations between individual samples. So, you might get a really good XF35 f/2 or a really bad XF27 and your results can vary. Also, one more word of caution with regard to reviews: some reviews use dcraw to develop the raw which used to be absolutely terrible in de-mosaicing x-trans files which means the resulting resolution graphs were really bad for the simple reason that the software was crap and not the lens. Conclusion from above If you are looking for best optical performance, the surprise here is that if you get a good copy of the XF27 it is optically better on average over the respective full range of apertures of each lens than either of the XF35 lenses. Now, that needs to be qualified though because if you take all three lenses and compare them from f/2.8 to f/8 only, the optically best I have here (and have tested personally) is the XF35 f/1.4. No matter though, if it is really the only lens used for a while then I would HIGHLY recommend the XF35 f/1.4 for the following reasons: ​It recovers optically better from f/2.8 on than the newer f/2 lens. It delivers one stop more light which results in more creative options shooting wide open as well as more exposure options shooting in dark areas AND it lets in twice (compared to f/2) or even four times (compared to f/2.8) as much light onto an auto focus system so can be more precise. It is optically better corrected than the two other lenses. The XF27 does not have an aperture ring which I personally find a downside but others might disagree here. While f/2.8 is not really slow, it is two stops slower than f/1.4 with all the creative disadvantages and exposure downsides. The field of few is actually quite a bit different between the 27 and the 35s. If the only viable financial option is between XF35 f/2 and the XF27 I'd go with the one that is closer to the preferred focal length. Waiting for 23 f/2? Why on earth would someone wait for a lens that isn't even on the Fujifilm lens roadmap yet? The rumors stem from an interview where a Fuji executive said that "people have asked for more compact slightly slower lenses" and that they'll likely develop some of them. Really, you're going to wait because of a rumor? XF27 vs. any of the XF35s I have not used the XF27 much in the last year since I bought the XF23. I basically pack it in my bag when I take the X-T1 on a longer trip to have an option to remove the ArcaSwiss plate from the camera, mount the XF27 and have a very compact system. But mostly I just take a bag with me and pack the 14, maybe the 23, definitely a 35 and maybe if I'm after portraits the 56 or 90. The XF27 is an okay "only lens" for me, but the XF23 and either of the XF35s are better "only lenses". I'm more a 35 than a 23 fan, but that's personal.

Do you were glasses?

I did a few months with only the 35/1.4 on an X-E1 and I loved it. There are some limitations due to the focal length, especially indoors when trying to capture larger subjects like cars in a museum or so, but similar issues exist for a 23 or 27 as well. If I were to go for a one lens system for a longer period of time it would be either the 23/1.4 or the 35/1.4. I would not go for f2 versions for the simple reason that the larger aperture give additional artistic as well as exposure leverage which is important if you have only a single lens. I can live with f/2, like on the X100T, but I like the additional options I have with a faster lens. The 27 would not be my choice because of the slow speed and missing aperture ring. The image quality is more than good enough, but f/2.8 just isn't cutting it for a single lens system. For deciding between 23 and 35, do yourself a favor and ignore all the "the 23 is more versatile" or "the 35 is better for this" comments. They are just opinions from people who don't know you so how can they give you a good recommendation? Look at your own photo library, figure out which focal length you used most and which gave you the best photos (that doesn't have to be the same). Pick the one where you like the results best and that will work for what you like to photograph over that "one camera one lens" period. You might want to go for a compromise if you can't decide. Or go for a two lens system. Whatever works for you.

If they were just to improve the current 23mm lens design but keep basic design values like front element size, that's not necessarily true.

I'd also absolutely HATE if TCL and WCL wouldn't fit anymore.

Crop modes are marketing BS, just like "digital zoom". There is no way to get detail back that wasn't captured in the first place. Sure, upscaling is possible, but it can never ever recover detail that was lost due to taking only the center of the captured frame and scaling it up. We aren't in a spy movie here where the agency that doesn't officially exist takes a single pixel and extrapolates a high res image from it. The Leica Q is also larger and heavier than an X100T. From a versatility perspective I prefer the X100T but I have to say I wish I could get that viewfinder from the Q!

Just to clarify this a little bit with technical information. As the electronic shutter is not a "global shutter" it has technical limitations that make it unsuitable for certain features of the camera or certain things you expect from a shutter as one might be used to. The electronic shutter in Fuji cameras works by reading the sensor line by line, which takes a certain amount of time. It is not a "snapshot in time" but a "window of time, where a snapshot of time is only a few lines of the sensor readout", which means that for example a flash exposure which has a burst of light much shorter than the readout of the whole sensor will only illuminate a certain amount of lines on the sensor. Similar but not the same to the effect you see when you choose a shutter speed above the flash sync speed with the mechanical shutter. You'll also get the "rolling shutter effect" due to the slow readout. This would all be solved with a global electronic shutter which can read a snapshot in time from the whole sensor in one go. This is not possible with the sensor technology that is in the Fuji (and most other) cameras. Regarding noise: the electronic shutter is absolutely noiseless. There is no sound AT ALL emitted from the shutter itself. If you put a manual lens in front of it, there is also no lens noise. That the Fuji cameras have a digital noise set for the electronic shutter has probably to do with legislation in some countries (like Japan and South Korea) which legally require a camera manufacturer to add a noise to the action of an image being taken. It generally can be turned off by the user, I have not looked up what the legal situation is for this in said countries, but it's not Fuji's responsibility anymore.

Great that it works for you. Again, the whole thing about image quality or looks really applies to JPEG only, which might or might not be important to a person. It's not so much for me although I do use JPEGs quite often for social media. It's awesome that you have found what you like. The X-Pro series certainly gives a different shooting experience than the X-T series so if that style suits you better, perfect.

Grain of salt? There is a whole salt mine lying right there. The X100 series cameras live from their 35mm and Hybrid viewfinder designs. Combined with TCL and WCL that's a great system that a Leica Q can't beat, other than in brand image. I've handled a Leica Q last week and while it was nice, there is no way in hell I'd swap my X100T for a Leica Q, even if it was a free exchange (except I could sell the Q, get an X100T again and add another Fuji camera to it). Now if Fuji were to bring a camera that has a fixed 50mm f/1.4 lens, plus a WCL for 28mm equivalent and a TCL for 85mm equivalent (which can be f/1.8 or f/2) that would certainly get my attention as long as it stays in roughly the same dimensions as the current X100 series.

Let me get back to cameras themselves you give you my personal opinion what I use for what and what I think the advantages or disadvantages with specific models are. You can then think about whether any of that applies to you and whether it is something you have already considered or haven't yet but shouldn't. Image Quality Let's get that out of the way first, unless you regularly remove 30% of the pixels through cropping, you aren't going to see an improvement with the 24MP over the 16MP sensors. There are minuscule differences between ISO performance, detail resolution and dynamic range that are completely and utterly irrelevant for day to day use. Even blowing up a 16 and a 24MP photo to 1m x 1.5m print, you'll be hard pressed to see a difference. The lens choice makes more of a difference than the pixel count. The additional Acros film simulation that everybody raves about is awesome, but again irrelevant if you want to truly get the best out of your images and therefore process raws with strong local exposure adjustments like gradients or other tools in Lightroom that allow you to widely change exposure in part of your photo. The raw just has more data than the JPEG and while the JPEGs actually do have an astounding leverage, they aren't as versatile as the raws. Weight By and large, the weight gain of a 100g to 150g or so from one end of the spectrum (X-Pro2/X-T1) to the other (X-T10/X-E2) are again, completely irrelevant. The weight is in the number and type of lenses you are planning to carry. There are the (comparatively) huge pro zooms (16-55, 50-140, 100-400) which are very large and heavy for mirrorless camera lenses, there are the mid-sized, but very, very good and fast lenses (16, 23, 56, 90) that are really on par with any L lens I've ever tried and there are the compacts, which are also pretty much in their own weight/price/quality class (14, both 35s, 60, 18-55). Depending on your shooting style you may or may not know what focal lengths are working for you. If you do know, pick the ones you know you'll like and just consider weight and size as well when picking between close contenders (like 14 vs. 16, 18 vs. 23, 56 vs. 60). Again, you determine the weight and size more by how many lenses you pack and which line of lenses you pick. The camera body is nearly irrelevant there. Camera Size What a lot of people miss is that the small camera bodies of mirrorless cameras have unique challenges in terms of haptic and ergonomics. Hands and fingers and thumbs have a certain size and need a certain space to operate comfortably. Personally I find the X-T1 layout quite cramped although I get along fine with it nowadays, I wish it was a little bit bigger and had the general layout of the new X-Pro2 but with a grip even more pronounced and deeper than the X-T1 has. I use my X-T1 with a permanently attached ArcaSwiss plate from Really Right Stuff, that gives the camera the necessary height so I can grip it comfortably with my full hand and don't have fingers hanging out in the air. The X-Pro2 doesn't need that, but for me it needs a real front grip. The X-E2 is awesome with the Fuji Metal Hand Grip, the same is true for the X100T, I have not tried the X-T10 with a grip. Quick impressions: X-T1 – very good for me with the ArcaSwiss plate permanently attached X-Pro1/2 – very good, but gets a bit large with the extra grip attached which I want as the camera's front grip isn't great X-E2 – great, but only with the Fuji Metal Hand Grip, without that, I dislike the handling of the camera X100T – great, but only with a Metrocase grip or the Fuji Metal Hand Grip, without these I dislike the handling of the camera even more than X-E2 X-T10 – too small for me, might be okay with additional handgrip, although I find the body overall to be too small So, pick your poison. Pick a small body with the potential need of adding a bulky grip, or pick a larger not quite ergonomic model that you have to make really bulky if it doesn't for you without a grip or pick a midsized model, add a grip or not. In daily use the size differences don't matter to people seeing you with the camera, don't think you are more or less conspicuous with a smaller camera, certainly as soon as you add a bulky lens like the 16mm that is completely gone. Body Style I find the SLR style bodies work better for me as I am left eye dominant and I keep my face slightly angled to the camera with my nose not touching the rear screen of my X-T1 at all but being in contact with my right thumb sometimes. No big deal, there is enough space there for me to work comfortably. Over time I have trained myself to be able to shoot with my right eye as well, but the rangefinder style does have some downsides for me. The EVFs are smaller, I love the huge EVF on the X-T1. And often enough I just pick up the camera put it my face and have smashed my nose against the screen because I put it to my left eye. Remember, left eye dominant here. Never a problem with the X-T1/X-T10. Also, on the X100T as well as the X-Pro series, one of the big issues I have is that I get fingerprints on the front element of the viewfinder which makes the view slightly "fuzzy" or "milky". The effect is actually quite pronounced which surprised me. I don't have the problem much since I added a quite big grip to the X100T, but before that it would happen ALL the time. Very annoying. My personal expectation is that the X-T2 will get a little bigger to deal better with heat management when 4k video arrives. It will pick up most of the internal changes of the X-Pro2, except the viewfinder of course and will hopefully go to an ever better EVF panel with higher resolution. The increased body size will make a stronger distinction between X-T10 and X-T2 than there is today, which personally I find acceptable as it allows for a more ergonomically sound button and grip placement. X-T1 vs. X-T2 The difference between the two will not be nearly as big as the differences between X-Pro1 and X-Pro2. X-Pro1 has been around for four years, it's a first generation product. X-T1 is a second (or even 2.5 if you account for the not-quite-there X100S) generation product. Going from second generation to third generation won't be as much of a step as from first to third. Therefore, it's likely not a step that will bring lots of benefits for users of current cameras, but can be an interesting one if you can wait out the release of the X-T2 and pick the then new camera generation. As mentioned above, image quality won't matter too much for still images, video will likely be a larger distinction if that matters to you. Personally I find 4k video in cameras like the ones we are discussing here, completely useless as the resolution increase brings too many downsides with it: long processing times in post, lots of storage needed, heat management in camera, not many places where you can actually watch 4k video. Personally I think if you want a camera for video, there are better choices in non-Fuji land. AF performance and general speed will be increased, but overall it won't be a revelation compared to what people have been used to on DSLRs for nearly a decade now. It's great to get, but not worth the upgrade from X-T1 to X-T2, again, just my personal opinion. X-Pro2 vs. other X Given it has the latest tech if the body style suits you and you actually like the OVF (I don't), there is no question, the X-Pro2 is a great camera. But it is kind of a geek camera with the OVF that isn't really great with a lens wider than 18mm or longer than 35mm. The captured frame is either bigger than what you see in the OVF or the frame visible is a really small square in the middle, even with the OVF magnification. I wish Fuji had added a third magnification level to allow 60 and/or 90mm lenses to use more than a small area of the OVF. Other than that I think the X-Pro2 has the best button and control layout by far from all the X cameras. Part of this is due to available space on the larger body, another part is a good balance between physical controls for the full exposure triangle (aperture, shutter speed, ISO) while leaving other functions to dedicated buttons or Fn buttons. The X-T1 brings it a bit too far with suboptimal implementation on a slightly too small body for the number of controls, the X-E and X-T10 style bodies have less dedicated controls again. So overall, I'd give the nod for buttons and controls to the X-Pro2 and hope that Fuji will bring some of that to the X-T2. Although I won't hold my breath there as I believe they'll still end up with suboptimal implementation and too many controls for the body size. But okay, that's something you can get used to. Regarding sensor and processor, I believe the newer processor gives a bigger gain than the new sensor. It speeds up everything the camera does and makes it more snappy and the new firmware and menu styling allows for some more intuitive handling. While the sensor is nice, it's no revelation compared to what has been around in competing cameras for a while, it merely brings Fuji up to par in terms of APS-C resolution with other manufacturers. Which, by itself, is a good thing, but I don't consider it crucial. The speed increase of the processor is much more crucial, especially to owners of the first generation X-Pro1 or X-E1 cameras than anything the sensor does. Packed Space Requirements One thing often overlooked is the requirement in packed space. An X-Pro2 packs actually slightly more compact than an X-T1. This might only affect people like me with a certain style/size in bags, but it's something to consider. The X-T1 "EVF hump" in addition with the ArcaSwiss base makes the X-T1 not fit in one of my preferred camera bags (Billingham Hadley Small) the way I want it, meaning sideways. Sure I can squeeze it in, bulging the bag, but I don't consider that a great solution. Therefore the Hadley Small is used for X100T and sometimes X-E2, but never for X-T1 based kits. I use a larger Hadley Pro for the X-T1 kit and like that sized bag for some other reasons as well. It really just depends on what I'm doing. And a big one (for me): Eye Point I frigging hate that Fuji has put such a small rear element on X100 and X-Pro series cameras. It means you have to get your eye really close to the viewfinders rear opening to see the full frame. With my Silhouette glasses that's not possible for me. With my other style glasses it works but I still have to "smash" the glasses against the rubber eye relief to see the viewfinder properly and I plain dislike that. The much longer eyepoint on X-T1 and X-E2 works a lot better for me. Especially the X-T1 with the large magnification, big rear element and long eye point combined with the long eye cup (accessory) is a joy to use even with glasses. I tend to use the rear display of the X100T much more than on any other camera with a viewfinder I have owned so far, plain because the viewfinder doesn't work well for me. Long term outlook (pure guesswork) My guess is that Fuji will distinguish the bigger and more expensive bodies over time more from the smaller and less expensive bodies than they have so far. Just think about it: the difference between X-T10 and X-T1 are basically weather sealing, larger EVF and more physical controls. That's it. But the X-T1 costs nearly twice as much. It could be that Fuji sticks to 16MP sensors and other cheaper components for the time being while the X-T2 and X-Pro2 will stay ahead for some time. That could mean software features as well as hardware features. It's the difficulty for a small company to work a market with quite a wide span in terms of technical requirements, price desires and overall hype for new things. So, maybe the above rant helped a little bit. I had some time sitting in a hotel waiting for my flight to leave, so I was able to write this all down. Whether it applies to you or not – only you can decide.

Okay ... http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1112821-REG/fujifilm_x_q2_digital_camera_silver.html http://camerasize.com/compact/#566,590,ha,f