johant

The whole "crop factor" thing was also practically heard of before DSLRs became popular, in my opinion.In the past, the formats were just referred to by numbers (like 110 film for small consumer cameras). Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

The 27mm is pretty good, but if you don't like it, don't use it ;-) Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Why not buy a X100T if that is what you really want? I don't agree with you on the 27mm, by the way, but that's fine. Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

It's fine from here, and the latest version of the Fujifilm RFC is available for download. Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

I wish that one could name custom settings. Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

A Google search reveals you are not alone ... it looks like the way the info is displayed on the back of the camera is misleading for many people. Don't worry; whatever that info says, it does not affect the RAW data in your RAF file. Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

But how does the 1920x1280 image size relate to that 30MB file size then? That would be about 64 bits per pixel, right? Sorry for being so thick, but I'm really not grasping your point :-( Edit: do you mean that your RAW converter resizes the resulting image to 1920x1280 pixels? Edit2: the info on the back of your camera relates to the JPEG data. It has no meaning for the data in your RAW file. Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Really? Are the X100T *.RAF files only 2.5MB? That is weird. I don't have a X100T to compare, but I would expect the files to be around 20MB indeed. Edit: just checked for my X-E1, and they are 25MB ... I would expect about the same for the X100T. Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

I sometimes predict things too ;-) Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

More or less (the Cambridge in Colour site gives an excellent explanation), but unfortunately I still fail to understand your question about the RAW "image" size ... probably I am missing something obvious here ;-) Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Because that is what your chosen RAW converter software does? Your software creates the picture, by doing a lot of operations on the RAW data. Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Why would a RAW file have dimensions? It contains the readout of the photo cells. The RAW converter creates pixel data with a RGB value from combining the readout values (and knowledge about the colour matrix). I think I am missing your question. Edit: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/raw-file-format.htm Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Really? I would have to check, but AFAIK there is no time component in the definition of the Candela? I think time only comes into the equation when you want to see how many photons are captured in a photoreceptor at the time of readout? Edit: actually the number of photons is not read directly, of course, but the resulting electrical charge. Edit2: the non-SI unit Lumen does have a time component, of course. Edit3: of course this has much more to do with science than with photography. Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

The size of the RAW data is determined by the number of photodiodes. Fuji does not support compressed RAW files. I am afraid that I don't understand your question ... is it about the RAW data, or the JPEG within that file? Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

RAW data is not an image. It only becomes an image after demosaicing. Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

The size of the RAW file does not change; that is just the sensor readout. However, the size and quality of the embedded JPEG can vary. Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Your best source is probably the Fuji rumours site. If it's not on there yet, it's unlikely that anyone knows yet. Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

I don't understand why they don't drop the price of the X-E2 ... don't they want to sell them? Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Aren't you looking at the embedded JPEG? Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

27mm f/2 (or faster) with an aperture ring on the lens, and close focus. WR would be a nice to have for me. Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

I can update that I bought the 50-230 (for €169, a no-brainer), and I am very happy with it. Yes, it is slow (but then, the Canon 55-250 kit zoom was hardly faster), but it definitely is sharp enough wide open for my purposes. Despite the plastic build, it feels solid ... I just hope that it proves to be that way (the long term build quality is my only concern). I've used it for two weeks now, and it's good enough for daytime use. AF is fast enough for me, and is very precise. I haven't tried the "zoo test" yet though. Most of my pictures so far where the birds visiting our garden

Maybe, but they were very useful to me.

I have tried to like the 18-55, but I failed. Nothing wrong with the optics, but it was too large for me on a X-E1, and too impractical on a X-Pro1. But it might be a great combination with the X-T1! And like I said, nothing wrong with the optical quality. One of my favourite XF lenses is the 27mm. "Normal" FOV, small and light, and very sharp. Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

I'm just happy that trees don't run that fast. Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

The EV button does not work in manual mode indeed. Unless it could automatically change the ISO value, which the Fuji cameras don't do in manual mode, there is nothing for it to adjust (at least true for the X-Pro1 and X-E1). I usually set the ISO to a fixed value when working in manual mode. That way you have full control. If your scene really exceeds the dynamic range of the sensor, you can create multiple exposures, and combine them in post processing. Otherwise, set dynamic range to 100%, expose so that the highlights are not blown, and pull up the shadows in your RAW converter. Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk