addicted2light

Thanks! Unfortunately renting is not really feasible where I live, the only option would end up costing almost as much as just buying a second hand lens (i.e. what I plan to do). But I did buy in the meantime a 55-200 and for now I'm really quite impressed. It's basically keeping up with the Contax 100-300, that is essentially the best Contax has to offer short of exotic pieces like the 85/1.2. For my limited testing, it's slightly softer at infinity, but slightly sharper up close, so optically I'd say it's a draw. Obviously it has AF and OIS, while the Contax has neither, and it's half the weight and size of the 100-300. My only gripe, for now, is the (relative) unsharp rendering of the borders in just some shots, handheld, but I'm quite sure this depends by the OIS. Considering the 55-200 is not the sharpest lens among the ones I plan to buy, while the Contax like I said is a reference point, it's looking pretty good!

Two hours or so ago, just testing my newly acquired 55-200: For now I've to say I'm impressed. I thought it was "just" a mid-range zoom in terms of optics, but it's keeping up against my *superb* (i.e. Canon L glass butt kicker) Contax 100-300...

If I got this right: http://www.ebay.com/itm/SKIER-9-Flag-Arm-Camcorder-DSLR-Camera-Flag-Hot-Shoe-Mount-Lens-Shade-Holder-/261441439434?hash=item3cdf1fc6ca:g:gpcAAOxy4eJTO17d Not sure about the quality though...

I doubt we will be able to see the difference on mainstream 8bit displays. But for print I think this should make quite a bit of difference: a subtler rendition of color/tonal graduations should make the images look more film-like and less digital. Not to mention, like I said, close to no banding. The biggest step would be, obviously, a sensor with full color information, i.e. not with a Bayer mask, like Foveon. Just google some comparison between Velvia (or any other film, really) and a digital rendition of the same scene. There are way more nuances and tonal/color graduations in the film shot (sometimes small details like berries etc. can loose color in the digitsl shot, becoming for example green like the grass around them, because they dont't happen to cover for example a red-masked pixel). Alas my guess is that we'll have to wait a few years for that, basically until the manufacturers will start hitting the limits in the Bayer based solution. A bit like happened for multi core cpu, once reserved exclusively for professional workstations (= medium format), that started to go mainstream once Intel, Amd etc. hit the physical limits in pushing the clock frequency too high.

You just brought back a lot of tv-related childhood memories Like I mentioned in that test, I actually find the bigger sensor a cons, because shooting landscapes the DOF is severely limited, even more so with the Mp going up. For example I don't recall having to stitch that much, if ever, with the Canon 5D mk II, while with the A7r is a necessity most of the times. Actually the only thing that I'd very much like for a manufacturer to bring to the table is (real) 16bit recording, like on the medium format backs. That DOES make a discernible difference in the nuances of the colors you can capture, and at least in theory should for example completely eradicate the plague of posterization in the skies (probably the bane of 99% of landscape shooters).

How about 16Mp vs 36Mp? http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/3582-fuji-x-t10-vs-sony-a7r-for-landscapes-with-samples/ I can see, with two identical images side to side, resized to 100cm wide, a really minor difference just in the focus plane (even stopping down there will be areas less sharp than the focus plane, even if "in focus", i.e. sharp enough thanks to the circle of confusion). Take the wider side to 120 cm and that difference will grow quite a bit, even if with most subjects a 16Mp file will still be good enough IMO. Over that and you really can pull it off only with portraits and subjects without that much detail to begin with, or printing on something like artisanal matte papers or canvas.

I kinda know what you mean. I've never used a Tak 55/1.8, but I love for this kind of use the Minolta MC 55/1.7 PF for exactly the same reasons!

I forgot to mention Pentax, but this helps me all the same because I had a couple of Takumars during the years: a 100/2.5 (?), the 50/1.4 both 7 and 8 elements, and a 50/4 M Macro, so I know how they rate against my Contax glass. Thanks!

Hi, anyone that has both could please chime in commenting about difference in sharpness? Even people shooting with other brands are welcome (I've been a Nikon shooter for a decade, and a Canon one for another decade). I have a pretty complete Contax setup, and I'm not sure if buying Fuji glass would make a meaningful difference in sharpness (besides other benefits like AF, OIS etc.). A few details: - I shoot landscapes, mostly, my cameras are 90% of the time on a tripod and I need the ability to print on matte and semi-matte paper up to 120cm / 47" - my Contax setup (for reference): 18, 35, 50/1.7, 60 Makro, 28-85, 100-300 - Fuji setup I plan to buy: 14, 23/1.4, 56/1.2, 18-55 (only for walking around and seascapes, when I can't change lenses without water drops landing on the sensor), 55-200 I am already adapting the Contax glass to the Fuji, and yes the results are generally pretty darn good (the partial exception being the 18mm). But I guess I'm just wondering how much more can I "squeeze" from the Fuji with better native lenses (better than the cheap 16-50 xc) considering that even the über-cheap 16-50 is really quite sharp. Thanks in advance!

Well, actually I do! If I'm tucked under a tree, or in the crevices of some rock formation, basically in places where you cannot easily move once you reach your position without bumping your head, I tend to stick to either LCD or viewfinder, whichever is easier to see in that particular (often uncomfortable) position. But I agree that seeing the menu on the rear screen should at least be an option.

Glad to hear it!

Lots of ideas! I would echo the suggestion of kyoleung, though, and invite everyone to send an email directly to Fuji. They seem to listen to their user base (except for the HDR...) so let them know what we want. The mail addresses for Fuji UK and Fuji Japan is here: http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/3547-11-suggestions-for-fuji-mostly-firmware/?p=32669

Thanks, nice to know! That being said, unfortunately my fn buttons are already all assigned...

You're welcome, let us know if you manage to solve the problem!

Hi, you don't say which version of Lightroom you're using, but the following solution should work anyway. A bit of tech background: I still use an iMac from mid 2011 with the DIY addition of an SSD and 24Gb of Ram. And I shoot with an X-T10, a Sony A7r (36Mp) and with medium format, on film that once scanned is around 100Mp per frame. The only time I experienced what you describe I was this close to buy a new computer, but then I noticed that with the same files Photoshop was still super fast, so it had to be something Lightroom-related. And in the end it was: apparently, Lightroom has a long term bug. If you happen to have too many developing presets it starts rendering previews in background for every image you're browsing with every preset you have installed, so it slows down to a crawl. Keeping only the presets I use more often completely solved the problem for me. If instead you happen to be still be using a 6.* version, you might want to read this post of mine: http://www.addicted2light.com/2015/10/19/how-to-solve-lightroom-6-2-and-6-2-1-slow-downs/ And for some other possible solution found on various forums read the first half of this post: http://www.addicted2light.com/2015/01/25/how-to-cure-lightroom-5-slow-down/ Good luck! And btw, Adobe should really redesign the engine of Lightroom if they still want money for it...otherwise even if it'll be a major pain I'll change software.

You're right, thanks for the idea! I just sent an email to Fuji Japan with this same list. Who knows, if enough of us ask...

I too felt that about the X-T10. But I ended up with one, and the second you add a 10€ ebay-or-amazon-special, Chinese knock-off (extremely well made) Arca compatible L-bracket with grip the handling of the camera becomes perfect. And it will still be slightly smaller than an X-T1, with the same capabilities except: - weather sealing (but if it's light rain I don't care, I'll just use a microfiber cloth to dry the camera now and then; and if it's pouring I'll use a plastic cover anyway) - a smaller finder (but of the same resolution, and extremely good IMO) - the inability to use a bigger eyecup (unless you go for the DIY route) - a dedicated ISO dial (that you can map anyway to the pressing of the front dial and/or in the Q menu) As for the potentialities of 16Mp files I suggest you give a cursory reading and a look at the samples to another post of mine, where I compared the files from the X-T10 to my Sony A7r (36Mp): Fuji X-T10 vs Sony A7r for landscapes, with samples And for more samples: Giving the boot to Sony? A7r vs Fuji X-T10

That's marketing BS. Pros need to justify the cost of the gear they use, with the possible exception of some really BIG name (that most likely anyway gets the stuff for free in exchange for free promotion for the brand he/she is using). I still remember when I was a kid the neighboring wedding photographer using a Nikon F70, that at the time was a super-beginner model. Even I had a better camera, but somehow he still managed to take better pictures than me... My guess is that there are not that many pros out there that can justify the cost of an Otus or a GM series Sony lens, especially when the results most of the time will be basically indistinguishable at normal printing sizes - and even more so on the web - from pictures taken with a Fuji (or a Pentax, or a Nikon DX, etc.). And most of the few pros that have these needs and this kind of cash I'm pretty sure they're gone medium format, for that has real benefits in terms of subject isolation - if you're into that -, sharpness and most of all color/tonality thanks to 16bit processing.

For landscapes I generally manage to get everything in focus front-to-back, even with relatively close foregrounds, already @ 18mm f/11 or 16. If you're into architectural photography obviously it's a different matter, and in that case I agree it would be quite useful to have tilt/shift. That said, assuming there is a market for them, considering Fuji focus is by wire so entirely electronic it shouldn't be too difficult to implement a tilt/shift mechanism in a lens with the necessary large coverage ( = hopefully it wouldn't need to be outrageously expensive!).

The reasons are several, some a matter of personal taste some objective differences, and some of them are probably classifiable under the "extra mile" category, so to speak. Always keeping in mind that they are both great cameras anyway, and that I shoot mostly landscapes and not portraits (where the full frame COULD have an edge, depending on your particular style). The following is more or less the "pros and cons" list I've sketched up trying to decide: The five biggest pros (together make up for 90%): Ease of post processing. I can get Sony and Fuji files to look more or less the same with post processing. But with the Fuji I get where I want to be MUCH faster. To give you an idea, and not considering localized adjustment (dodging and burning etc.) that depends on the content of the single image and may or may not be needed on a case to case basis, I generally spend less than 2 minutes for each file in Lightroom / Photoshop with Fuji files, while with the Sony's the time can easily stretch to 10 or more. Highlights. Related to the previous point: even if the Sony has more dynamic range both on paper and by my own tests compared to the straight (i.e. without any kind of compensation, DR, or curve adjustment; this is the key) Fuji files, in reality the highlights with the Sony look always strange and peeled off. Please keep in mind I shoot most of the times in the woods, where dappled light is the norm and the contrasts are extreme. So for me is fairly easy to have a couple of spot of lights on a lightly colored tree trunk that look (but are not) blown out. So most of the time I spend with the Sony files are to make sure the highlights are ok (underexposing and compensating) and using localized adjustments (brush etc.) to recover the single spots. With the Fuji all this is unnecessary. My guess they use a different, more film-like, curve in camera, so the highlights are always ok as long as you expose properly. This is a BIG point for me, probably 50% of the reason. Colors: Fuji colors, possibly because I've shot for years with Fuji films, look the way I want most of the time almost straight out of the box. The same with Olympus, btw. And with the Fuji you get more color separation, for lack of a better term. Look at the dead leaves in the 2nd picture. Like I said you can almost get there with post processing with the Sony, but life is too short to spend it in front of a computer! Shutter shock. This point is directly related to the A7r: no shutter shock. I love shooting with long lenses (200 and up). But with the A7r I had quickly forego this because unless you use a fast enough shutter speed (like you were shooting handheld) the images most of the time come out blurry. I could solve this buying an A7 II or an A7r II, but this wouldn't solve the previous points, though. DOF. With the Sony, even with a 18mm lens @ f/16, is impossible to have everything in focus in most shots (remember, I don't shoot "landscapes at infinity", but "landscapes in the woods" most of the time). So for most of the shots you'll have to resort to focus stacking. Besides the added workload this means loosing shots, because something moved during the shooting or because the software algorithm made an error or because you made an error. The light can change, the wind can be blowing, etc., you get my point. With the Fuji one shot is enough 99% of the times... Blue channel. With the various Sony cameras I've shot (not just the A7r) the second you start post processing your files, even at 50 or 100Iso, unless you aggressively expose to the right (but then you'll have troubles with the highlights, see the second point), the blue tones of skies and clouds (and sometimes the reds of trees bathed in sunset light) will become completely riddled with noise. To give you an idea, is like shooting at 3200 iso with the Fuji! Not ideal for landscapes...to say the least. Several other reasons that could have made me buy an A7 II / A7r II instead (but thanks to the previous points Fuij is still the best solution for my needs): Tripod. With the Sony to avoid shutter shock even with the wide angles I have to use the same tripod and head I used with my large format 5x7" setup. No need to say it is HEAVY. The Fuji is rock steady, even in mechanical shutter mode, even with the lightest tripod I own. Haptics: I'm comfortable with the controls of the Sony, but all the same I found myself reaching for the Fuji every time I go out. Most of that has to do with the terrible shutter button of the Sony, mushy as hell without a clear point of detent. THE worst shutter button I ever used, and in several decades (I started shooting when I was 5) I've shot with a LOT of cameras. Weight. In all a slightly lighter setup compared to the one I use now (taking lenses into the equation), possibly up to 1Kg less. Lenses. Fuji has the focal lengths I need and at the right price point for my pockets (on a side note: a 3.000€ 50mm lens? Sony must be kidding!) Iso. Base Iso of 200: faster shutter speeds to freeze wind-blown branches and grass High Iso. No hot pixels at high iso. The Sony puts out hundreds of hot pixels most of the time (especially under artificial light) at 1600 and up, the Fuji is whistle clean. There are as well cons, but they are outweighed by the pros, at least for me: ​OIS only on zooms (come on Fuji...) harsher out of focus transitions unless you use the same focal length (not the equivalent one), especially noticeable when there are defocused highlights in the background ("bokeh balls"). Not a big deal, like I said it suffices using a slightly longer lens stepping back a bit (1.5 times!) The watercolor effect, especially noticeable with "aerial" shots where there is a lot of air between you and the subject (long lens landscapes). This is solvable using aggressive sharpening or Irident. And, to a lesser and different extent, is a problem even with the Sony, because has to do with the air currents lowering a lot your real resolution. The difference is that Sony files become muddy/blurry instead of "watercolored". As you can see you shouldn't have asked me this question on a Sunday morning, I have too much free time on my hands!

You're welcome, I wish someone had posted a similar comparison when I was shopping for the A7r. These are unedited files, but especially after a bit of "polishing" in Photoshop or Lightroom what makes the biggest difference are the colors (for example the dead leaves on the 2nd sample). And that difference you can see it even on the web or printing really small. My guess is that your girlfriend will have to buy a new camera, because someone's going to permanently borrow hers

Yeah I know, I got a bit carried away essentially because the more pictures I was looking at, the less I believed my own eyes!

Should someone be interested this developed into a full fledged post, and beside I've put a few more samples on Flickr, where they'll show up of the right size and hopefully less compressed. You can find the links here: Giving the boot to Sony? A7r vs Fuji X-T10

I use one of those 10$ ebay specials, Chinese-made, Arca-compatible L-brackets with grip that it is absolutely perfect. I tried the thumb grip, but I didn't like the fact that it made using the dials more difficult.

I wanted to see if I can get rid of the Sony, given I enjoy much more the results I'm getting from the Fuji in terms of colors and ease of post-processing. So today I put them one against the other taking identical shots few seconds apart. You can see below a couple of twin crops (click on them to see them properly, albeit softened by the web compression probably used by the forum software backend) that on a normal, non-retina, screen will have the same dimensions of a print of a 100cm length. In each, one of the images has been shot with a Sony A7r ("Vivid" picture style), the other with the X-T10 ("Velvia" film simulation), trying to match the colors to a reasonable approximation. Both using Contax Zeiss glass at f/11 (a 50/1.7 Planar on the Sony, a 35/2.8 Distagon on the Fuji; I know these lenses well, and from f/5.6 forward they are undistinguishable so any difference is due the sensor, not the lens). Irident (or RawTherapee with deconvolution sharpening and microcontast) would be able to squeeze even more details from the X-T10, but for these examples I've used Photoshop CS 6.1 I'm extremely impressed, to say the least. Remembering that you will watch a print this big at least from 60/80cm apart, so please don't put your nose on the screen , can you tell which one is which2? Hint: if I keep getting these results my A7r is hitting eBay soon! 1Using the following sharpening procedure, should you be curious. SHARPENING METHOD USED Keep in mind that the following values are indicative (you'll have to tweak them based on the picture content and the amount of detail) and based on fairly big prints, like 60x90cm and up. However, given that to properly apply them you will have to use your picture as a "Smart object", they might work even for smaller print sizes, especially toning down the radiuses. In Lightroom or in Camera Raw (same thing) I give the files a fairly conservative (for an X-trans sensor) capture sharpening: amount 40 / radius 1 / details 60 / masking 10. Then I open the file in Photoshop as a "Smart object" and I resize it to fit my desired print dimensions. At that point I use first the old, classic "Unsharp mask": amount 120%, radius 1.5 pixels, threshold 0. And finally "Smart sharpen" in "Advanced" mode to extract the textures and the small detail (this takes care of the watercolor effect, basically). General tab: amount 131%, radius 1.5 pixels, "Lens blur" with "More accurate" activated Shadows: fade amount 60%, tonal width 50, radius 1 Highlights: fade amount 20%, tonal width 50, radius 1 OPTIONAL STEP (not used in the samples above): at this point, should you want results more comparable to Irident, but at the cost of a tad more noise, you should add another round of "Smart sharpen": amount 40, radius 1. After these steps all that's left is print sharpening, but of that I usually let the now free Nik Sharpen plugin take care of. 2In both cases left Sony A7r, right Fuji X-T10