addicted2light

I might be late, considering you already took the plunge. But I don't think a camera with an EVF is the right choice for active toddlers. I notice a definite lag using the EVF of the X-T10 (that for all other things I love) for active toddlers, and that even using it in zone focusing with an adapted MF lens (so no AF delay to speak of). Meaning: I often see an expression, I immediately press the shutter, but the picture is wildly different. This happens because, looking through the EVF, when you see something you're not looking in real time at the actual scene, but at a "recording" (so to speak) of the scene, so the expressions you're seeing through the EVF are in reality already gone even before you press the shutter. To be honest, this is much more evident in low light, because probably the refresh rate of the EVF plummets. For this kind of subject I'd definitely go for either a DSLR or an X-Pro 1, X-Pro 2 or an X-100 series camera with their optical viewfinder.

The 16-50 sports the biggest differences between mark I and II. According to Fuji, the optical scheme has been optimized and the minimum focusing distance has been shortened from 30/40cm to 15/30cm. The 55-230 mark II received instead "just" a better stabilizer, with a gain of half a stop: 3.5 vs the previous 3 stops.

Oh man...this is like asking "which one is the best car"; you'll get thousands of answers, all of them valid, but all of them personal. Anyway this is mine. If you shoot landscapes: 18/2 = small, sharp enough and with a 3d rendering that I find extremely pleasing, especially for close up subjects 35/1.4 or f/2 = both terrific lenses 55-200 (or 55-230 if you hike a lot or if you don't use long lenses that often) = paired with the aforementioned lenses you'll be ready for anything if you shoot portraits / streets / etc.: 18/2 = all of the above about 3d etc., and besides it makes an almost pocketable combo with the X-T10 that's brilliant for street photography 60 macro = with this one and the 18/2 you can as well pass the 35mm 1.4 or f/2, and still have a do-it-all, extremely capable two-lenses setup 16-50 II (the cheap one, not the f/2.8) or 18-55 = for the times you don't want / can't swap lenses. Both excellent (not up to the level of a prime lens, but more than good enough). The 16-50 has slightly weaker corners, but I honestly have to look very hard, in landscape shots, to see them (and I've used Zeiss glass for the last 20 years). And with its image stabilization (model II has the IS improved) I can shoot at 1/2s and still have pin-sharp results 1/3rd of the time* *meaning that if I take 3 shots in succession at least 1 of them will be pin-sharp. Please, keep in mind I've been shooting since I was a little kid, YMMV.

I use both systems, and as you can imagine they are both plenty capable. If you shoot handheld switch to Fuji, they're responsive cameras compared to Sony's (not just the AF). If you shoot on a tripod, especially if you don't use long ( >180mm ) lenses, get yourself an "old" A7r for a lot less money you'd spend switching. (I say this because you already say you have a Sony setup, nothing wrong with Fuji as landscape/tripod cameras). My 2 cents.

It used to be 18/35/60, or if you prefer 28 (sometimes 24) /50/90. But in the end I never bother carrying the intermediate focal length. So nowadays is usually 28(or 24mm) eq. + 85(or 90, or 100mm) eq., and only if I already now that I'm gonna need it (open landscapes, mountaintops and stuff like that) I bring a 300(or a 100-300) as well.

If I were you, especially considering that what you shoot is all over the map, I'd get the following (all used, and you will possibly have some cash left in the end): - XPro 1 (and update it to the latest firmware; they are selling for peanuts) - 18/2 - 60 macro This way you would expand your kit with gear that does something what you have already does not: - the XPro 1 has the optical viewfinder, that comes in handy in low light and for shooting moving subjects, to check if someone / something is about to enter the frame you already chose - the 18/2 makes a nice compact kit on the XPro 1, almost as small as an X100 (to be as small you'd need an XE2 or an XT10, but then you'd loose the optical viewfinder) - the 60 macro is IMO a nicer portrait lens than the 56 (it's a matter of taste, I don't like the bokeh of the 56 and bokeh in many portraits plays a big role); and is a macro, of course! - the 18 + the 60 make for my favorite small kit: a 28mm + a 90mm equivalent focal lengths. With just these two you can tackle almost everything, short of wildlife My 2 cents

It's not the computer, it's the engine of Lightroom that is basically outdated crap. Besides, Lightroom has a bug that causes exactly the kind of behavior you're speaking about: if you have too many developing presets (and no, they don't need to be in the thousands) it can become unbelievably slow in the Library module - up to a crawl, in the most extreme cases like the one I experienced. Strangely enough, it will still be fast in the Develop module, so you'll have an hard time pinpointing the problem if you don't know about this. BTW, I use LR 6.5.1 (the latest version) and it still takes a noticeable time to import Fuji files. But the previews are fairly instantaneous, with 16Mp Fuji files, with 36Mp Sony files and with film scans that run between 40Mp and 180Mp. My configuration is: iMac mid 2011 with core i5 2.7Ghz, 24Gb ram, El Capitan. The only thing I changed is that I removed the nowadays useless DVD writer and put instead an SSD in its place - putting only the LR catalog on the SSD (the rest resides on the "normal" internal HDD). Now the iMac flies, and is something you can DIY fairly easily as long as you're comfortable around computer hardware.

Just an out-of-the-box suggestion. I don't use photo bags. I use whatever bag I like / buy at the moment (generally heavy canvas, waxed canvas or leather) and as "padding" I use instead a light rain jacket / spare t-shirt (according to season and weather) wrapped loosely around the camera. In the same bag, but in a different pocket / pockets, I carry if needed a water bottle, keys, a notes and a pen, etc.

I don't know if weight at this point is going to mean something, they are both so light... And yes, the grip has 3 advantages: it gives you "more" to grip, so your fingers can be more relaxed it gives you an Arca-compatible camera mount for when you use a tripod, and L shaped to booth (so instead of having to tilt the tripod head for a vertical shot and recompose, you can just slide the camera out and put it back on its side with minimal changes to your framing) it moves to the center of the camera the tripod hole (important mostly when you try to take panoramas, to be able to properly stitch the images)

Btw, I often use hdr (in the sense we talked about) even when there is no need in terms of dynamic range. As long as there aren't issues with movements of your subject (leaves or blades of grass in the wind etc) you get IMO much better colors. Not (only) in terms of saturation, but in terms of deepness of the tint, of numbers of nuances. And for the same reason the colors are as well less prone to fall apart (banding, blown out reds etc) if you decide to push the saturation or the vibrance sliders.

+1 for the X-T10: the tilt screen is extremely useful for landscape and architectural shots. Buy her as well one of these: Vertical Metal Quick Release L-Shaped Bracket Hand Grip for Fujifilm Fuji X-T10 It does wonders for the handling of the camera. As for the lens, I bought the X-T10 with the 16-50 because it was the only kit available locally, thinking of changing it later with the 18-55. It turns out that I don't think I'll do it, because the XC16-50 (or at least my copy) is extremely good!

With HDR you can, broadly speaking, follow one of two approaches once you have combined the source files together (this is relatively software-independant, as long as they get the job done): - you can "develop" the 32bit file with an HDR software (selecting the option for the "automatic tone" in the Lightroom screen when you join the files, or using an external editor like Photoshop or Photomatix). 99% of the time you'll get the HDR look or at the very least the digital look (digital look = almost no shadows, low contrast, high saturation, "crunchy" details everywhere) - you can "develop" the 32bit file in Lightroom (without first selection the option for the "automatic tone" in Lightroom when you join the source files) This is not technically an HDR, but an exposure fusion. You'll still get the benefits of a vastly extended dynamic range, but the results will look way more natural. It comes down to your personal taste. As for me, I despise the HDR look, it literally makes my eyes hurt. So I use always the second approach. The only time when I use other software other than Lightroom, and then only to join the source files, is when Lightroom for some reason does a botched job aligning the images or removing ghosts. For this either Photomatix (I repeat, only for joining the pictures in a 32 bit file) or the donation-ware LREnfuse plugin come to the rescue.

You're welcome! Btw, if you have the "Extended" or the cloud version of Photoshop you can as well use the (I think is called) "median" script to accomplish the same in a more automated and faster manner.

You'll need an "old school" threaded cable release, that screws into the shutter button. Something like this one: 40" 100cm Camera Shutter Control Cable Mechanical Locking Release Remote Cord Good news is that these are super cheap. Bad news is that unfortunately one of these will do nothing to overcome the 30s limit, hence my suggestion of using stacking in Photoshop or in some other, more "automatized" software.

You're welcome. Let us know the results!

Sorry to hear that. I don't know what you shoot, but you could circumvent the need of having to sent the camera out for a repair using the continuous advance + a cable shutter release + a stacking program or Photoshop* *load the images in layers, align them, and then change the opacity following the formula "opacity = 100 / position of the image in the stack", i.e. first image in a 10 images stack from the bottom gets an opacity of 100 (100 / 1), second image gets 50 (100 / 2), third image gets 33 (100 / 3) etc. Basically you'd merge then a series of 30s exposures, with the same effect (or almost the same effect, depending on the subject and the amount of stacked images) of a cumulative longer exposure (10 images of 30s each = a single 300s image), and with the added benefit of less / no long exposure noise and less noise (noise is random, so it gets cancelled out when merging the images this way, as well as subjects that'll move between exposures)

My guess is that it is broken, sorry. To be safe, just try moving the aperture on another value other than "A" (I don't have the camera anymore, and I don't recall any locking mechanism of the dial linked to the aperture, but you never know...)

I can think of a few reasons: - because it was dark, you probably shot at f/2. The X100's lens is notoriously quite soft at close distance @ f/2 - you focused at close distance, but you didn't engage the "Macro" function so the camera wasn't able to focus properly - the camera chose a shutter time too long for you to steadily handheld the camera, and what you perceived as a soft image was so due camera micro-shakes (or subject movement) and not because errors in focusing Try to replicate the shot in better light (daylight), engaging the "Macro" function if needed, stopping down the lens to f/2.8 and selecting a shutter speed of at least 1/60s (and use the ISO to expose properly). This way you'll be able to exclude malfunctions of the camera.

I use LR 6.5.1 (Camera Raw 9.5.1). But I'm seeing no discernible difference in the way it renders Fuji files against Photoshop CS6 (Camera Raw 9.1.1.461), so my guess is not that much version dependent. Please keep in mind that my rule of thumb when selecting lenses, softwares etc. is that if I can't spot a meaningful difference in a few seconds than whatever difference there is it's not wort the hassle of changing workflow or the price difference for a more expensive piece of glass. Others may have different opinions.

I don't have an XPro1 myself, but judging from the tech specs (as published by imaging-resource.com) you shouldn't have this problem. The XPro1, prefocused or used with manual focus lenses and with the shutter button half-pressed, has a shutter lag of 0.053 second. The Canon 1Dx, used in the same way, has more or less the same shutter lag: 0.056 second.* *There is another value listed for the Canon in the imaging-resoulce test, listed as "Prefocused ("Shortened" shutter release)" that amounts at 0.038 second. But it is probably some kind of special function or mod My guess is that there is a fair bit of oxidation going on under/on the shutter button circuit (it happened to me on one of my film cameras). If so, it shouldn't be that hard to clean up (or to replace the part) for a technician, assuming it hasn't spread further inside the camera.

I've tried several strategies to sharpen Fuji files (Nik included), and several raw developer softwares. So far, the less-artificial results I'm getting are from one of the following two approaches. They are interchangeable up to a point, but each works marginally bests with a specific kind of image. Basically, the RawTherapee approach seem to like better images with very fine detail (a meadow in the distance), while the Clarity approach is more suited for images with bolder detail (a meadow up close, with the blades of grass clearly visible). BTW, I might be dumb or blind but I seriously can't see Irident making much of a difference enough to justify disrupting my LR based workflow (and yes, I've tried all the possible sharpening combinations). The only exception being its upscaling algorithms that seem to be really better than PS or LR ones. RawTherapee - first I take care of the “normal" settings appropriate for each image, so white balance, exposure etc., even though usually the image will look good straight from the start; remember, I'm saving the big edits for LR - this is the good part: for sharpening, I select “RL Deconvolution” with the following (indicative, are image dependent) values Radius = 66 Amount = 100 Damping = 20 Iterations = 100 - finally I select (the small icon on the top left of the panel, resembling an “off” button) “Microcontrast” at its default value ​ I think I'll use this method only for the very best images and/or the ones that need a fair amount of enlargement. Clarity This is a all-in-Lighroom approach. Many people using LR or PS are relying on the "Bridgewood method": http://petebridgwood.com/wp/2014/10/x-trans-sharpening/ basically a low radius - high detail approach. To me the files sharpened this way often look though either too crunchy or too soft. Instead I use a fairly conservative (for X-trans sensors) set of values in the Lightroom sharpening panel: Amount = 35 to 45 Radius = 1 to 1.4 Details = 40 to 60 Masking = as needed to clear areas with low/no detail, but usually at least around 10 Obviously the exact values will depend by how fine the details are in the actual image, the amount of detail in general etc. To this I will then add a ton of "Clarity" (even 100% if the image is really detailed, like some underwood shots), decreasing "Contrast" as needed (even -100% in some rare case) until the image looks good. This leaves you with images than even at 100% magnification resemble a lot a good medium format 4.5x6cm slide film scan, and that will sharpen beautifully in Photoshop for printing purposes (with the sharpening obviously based on printing media and size). My 2 cents

Given what you said above, why not bringing an X100T (35mm equivalent, fast f/2 for night shooting, theoretically not even the chance of dust on the sensor being a fixed lens camera), the 18/2 (fits in a pocket, for the times you really need wide, and the difference between 24 and 28mm is just a step back) and the 55-200 with the X-T2? This way you would have a night/street/backup camera (X100T) plus a "general" camera (XT2) for when you need longer-shorter focal lengths. Alternatively, if you're comfortable not using a viewfinder even the X70 with its 28mm it might be interesting instead of the X100T.

My guess is that what you're experiencing is that Fuji glass is generally amazing, and the 35 in particularly is a gem. It's a tall order to beat it! I'm slowly switching fo Fuji from Sony (still waiting for the X-T2 for the full switch) and for now I only have an X-T10 with the cheap 16-50 kit zoom. But I have quite a bit of exceptional Minolta M-Rokkor (Leica mount) and Contax Zeiss glass that I'm using on both Sony and Fuji. What surprised me the most is that while said glass is sharper than the 16-50 (as it should! The Contax 100-300 alone used to cost when new around 2.500€ in today's money...) the difference is often not so vast. And this with the cheapest kit lens. During the years I shot with almost all Fuji medium format (film) cameras, and I loved their lenses to death. So it is not a surprise for me that they definitely know their glass!

If you want an 85/90mm the Canon 85/1.2 FD should supposedly be really really good. But if I were you I'd go for a longer lens, like a 180 or a 200/2.8 (assuming you have the space to back up, obviously). This because the medium format look depends as much from the thin dof than from the compression given by a longer focal length. Please keep in mind that you might want to have the tip of the nose in focus as well (it's a matter of taste, but I certainly do), and if so shooting at f/1.2 will not feasible, and you'll probably need at least f/2.8 anyway. And lastly for the best results (not for a tight portrait, though) I'd use the "Brenized method": http://ryanbrenizer.com/category/brenizer-method/ It's the only way IMO to achieve a proper mf look on small sensors (small = not medium format, so Sony/full format as well). I've shot mf for years (still do), so maybe I'm a bit overcritical, but just using a shallow depth of field it is not gonna cut it. EDIT: I just noticed you listed "80Mp" as one of the features of the Sony sensor that could help with the look. Sorry, but megapixels have nothing to do with this. The "look" is only linked to the physical dimensions of the sensor, regardless of the resolving power. A 20 years old 6 megapixels medium format back can still produce "the look" effortlessly!

Battery life doesn't bother me, a couple of spares fit in a pocket and you won't even notice they are there (but I don't shoot video or time-lapses). As for the EVF, I didn't say that DSLR are inferior. I said that's a matter of taste. The D3200 was bought as a toss-away camera, but during the years I've used my fair share of pro and semi-pro Nikon and Canon bodies. I still prefer to use an EVF, though. Obviously anyone else should make their own mind about this, depending on what they shoot, but for me there is no going back to an OVF.