addicted2light

Sorry I meant 100/2.5!

You might find this helpful: http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektiv-vergleiche This guy tested old Minolta lenses on Sony full frame bodies and against modern glass like the latest A and E mount offering. It is mostly in German (use Google Translate), but often the images really speak for themselves. On a side note, I like quite a bit my Minolta MC 24/2.8 (old version, not the new one with the 49mm filter size) and the 105/2.5 MD (latest version).

Elliot (not Eric) Paul Stern, that's why you were out of luck: https://elliotpaulstern.me/2017/04/21/eyecups-compatible-with-fujifilm-x-pro2-jjc/ AMAZON (they are calling them "eyecup" instead of "eyepiece", that's why you and I both couldn't find them at first): Larger Version for People that Wear Eyeglasses: https://www.amazon.com/JJC-Silicone-Eyepiece-Fujifilm-Eyeglasses/dp/B06Y4M6G6M/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1492843023&sr=8-11&keywords=fuji++eyecup Normal version: https://www.amazon.com/JJC-Silicone-Eyepiece-Fujifilm-FinePix/dp/B06Y4LMLZC/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&qid=1492843023&sr=8-21&keywords=fuji++eyecup

I shoot with both (X-T10 and A7r first gen). I toyed with the idea of switching completely to Fuji for quite a bit (you can read about it on my blog, where I published as well a shootout between the 16Mp X-T10 and the 36Mp A7r using the same, adapted, lenses). http://www.addicted2light.com/2016/07/29/giving-the-boot-to-sony-a7r-vs-fuji-x-t10/ But in the end, at least for now, I kept using both. The real advantage of the Sony sensor is not necessarily its size, unless of course you want the shallowest possible depth of field. What keeps the Sony in my bag, its several annoying quirks notwithstanding, is the fantastic ability to push the shadows with (@ 50 Iso) essentially no noise at all. This alone opens your shooting envelope quite a bit. That said, in many circumstances you could do the same with the Fuji just using HDR. And while it's true that taking multiple shots is not always feasible, the same goes for the Sony (or other full frame bodies) when you start taking into account that in order to have extended depth of field quite often just stopping down it isn't gonna cut it, and you will have to resort to focus staking. For comparison, the only three really annoying "features" I've found with Fuji are: the sensor reflections when shooting with the sun in the pictures (not always, but frequent enough to be annoying); the lack of an extended eyepiece for the X-T10; and the HDR bracketing limited to a measly +1 -1 stops. If I were to start from scratch, though, I'd definitely go the Fuji route.

Sorry I was thinking about the xt10 and x100 series, where you are limited to jpg at 100 and over 6400 iso. As far as I know this it's not the case anymore on the xpro2

Check carefully in the menus, to me it looks like you might have inadvertently selected one option that is jpg-only (art filters and the like), and that's preventing you from switching to raw. Also check the ISO dial, you might have bumped it in some sensibility only available in jpg. In the worst case you could do a full reset just to start from scratch.

Hi, probably the fastest and cheapest solution, assuming you can find one in your area, is going to a clock repairman. They usually have all kinds of super small screws, and bringing your camera with you (or as a last ditch effort removing the last screw from your camera and measuring it) they will be able to determine which size and pitch you need, and sell to you the 3 missing screws. Best luck with this, and I agree: having to send a camera in for a repair like this one is simply ridiculous...

Thanks, you're way too kind!

Not really, with my rig I don't have parallax error (or at least it's very minimal). I take a picture of my finger pointing right before each set, and pointing left after; the actual shooting takes mere seconds, waaaaay less than it used to be the case with the large format setup. Then in Lightroom I can just group the sets "bracketed by the fingers", so to speak, and stitch the panos in the background while I sip a much deserved cup of coffe! The only downside it that using "perspective" projection the sides get a bit soft, but it's something you'll notice only in a very large print, and besides I usually shoot with the intention to crop to 1:1 or at maximum 4:3*, so they get cropped out more often than not. When I have the time I have to give Autopano a go to see if it's better in this regard. *I use a super small Olympus E-M10 as a viewfinder for this, leaving the A7r in the bag, because it has the ability to crop 1:1, 3:2, 4:3 and 16:9. So I can scan the scene and decide the crop before setting up the tripod. I really wish Sony implemented a few more crop factors in their cameras, just for compositional purposes!

My workflow for the best looking shots, or at least the ones that appear to potentially be among the best, is now to stitch (with the camera in portrait orientation, using a super small rail + the L bracket) anything from 3 to 5 pictures taken with the A7r. This does two things: first I can potentially print them huge, or at more reasonable sizes but with excellent sharpness; secondly I can use not-so-exceptional lenses that I like nonetheless a lot for their rendering - like the 50/1.5 Jupiter 3 - and still get sharper pictures that if I'd used a Zeiss 55/1.8 single-shot at any given print size. If instead Canon plans to let us capture this amount of detail in just one shot, so with an extremely small pixel pitch, they better come up first with both a global electronic shutter, otherwise the shutter shock will most likely be atrocious; a kick ass sensor or lens based stabilization for when you're shooting handheld, and a range of extremely good primes under 50mm, otherwise all those pixels will be massively wasted at anything but the dead center of the frame. There is too much mushy stuff on flickr already

Yeah, I still get resolution-shock when I mistakenly look at my 35mm scans at 1:1 instead that at an A3-equivalent zoom ratio

First of all, I still shoot a fair amount of film, both 35mm and medium format, and I've a refrigerator half full of black and white and cine color film, so I'm not exactly a "digital fundamentalist". But that article is pure BS. Not surprisingly there is not a single picture or citation to illustrate it. 99% of films have a native resolution between 40 (Ektachrome) and 80 (Velvia) lp/mm. A very few like Technical Pan and its clones go up to 140 lp/mm, but then you have to fight, IMO, with horrid tonalities. And getting nice tones should be one of the first reasons to shoot film to begin with, IMO. And this is all just theoretical anyway, because with the exception of very few cameras (like the Contax RTS III with it's vacuum back) film flatness WILL lower the resolution a lot; to cite from the first of the documents linked below "Loss of image quality ranges from 23-90% of native MTF resolution". And all this, obviously, only using the very best lenses, sturdy tripods, remote releases etc. These are an extremely interesting readings, from someone who actually knows what's talking about: Film Grain - Vitale Art Conservation and Digital Imaging Digital Image File Formats - Conservation OnLine (talks a lot of film as well) I can't find the document anymore, but even NASA and Hasselblad, when they decided to scan the shots taken on the moon and on the Apollo missions (and I guess the goal was to extract every minute detail), if I remember correctly put a "cap" of 24Mp, and then only on the pictures taken on black and white film. Don't quote me on this, though, I've read this article years ago and I might be mistaken. Digital has much more contrast (even if it then cuts the MTF abruptly instead of gradually, but with the high resolution sensors this is really hard to see) and a sensor is perfectly flat. Maybe we should go all back to glass plates, and in a sense we actually did! A few years back I did a set of 8.500ppi scans (actually even better, I did essentially micrographies) to illustrate this concept, you can see them here: FEM: Film Equivalent Megapixels – redux

I don't shoot kid that often given I don't have any. But then from time to time one of my friends asks me to take pictures at their kids' birthdays and such. Last time I took the X-T10 and I experienced what I detailed in the post. Granted, it was a very dark venue and that might have had quite a bit of influence on this behavior. But considering you cannot always control the lighting levels I still think, for this kind of use, a camera with an optical viewfinder of sort might be better. Obviously YMMV

You're welcome! I usually don't have the patience to wait all that additional time, so I keep it off...on the other hand I don't shoot that many long exposures

Do you by any chance have "Long exposure noise reduction" active? If so, the camera will capture a dark frame after your main exposure, and that takes the same amount of time your exposure was, plus additional time for the camera to subtract the dark frame from the original shot (i.e. to remove the thermal noise).