MikeA

I hadn't thought about the CACA* problem or the marginal-if-any improvement in usability. Must re-think this, then. Ok, I've re-thought it. The camera-mutilation aside, I do find it improves usability for me quite a bit. True enough, the aesthetics problem does trouble a person a bit, at least subconsciously, and one can only hope that the subtle damage does not leak into Photography itself. * Crimes Against Camera Aesthetics [a.k.a. "What were those people thinking who design Nikons and cine cameras?"]

When I first started using digital cameras, I was dismayed by the lack of a small but worthwhile accessory that I'd always used with film SLRs — a real eyecup. Quite a few manufacturers call their slip-on eyeguards "eyecups," but they aren't. They're don't keep (distracting and annoying) stray light out of the viewfinder. When I used Canon DSLRs, I went through the considerable pain of making my own eyecups — I'd found a small supply of ancient "A" series eyecups that fit nicely onto Canon's slip-on eyeguards. It was worth the trouble. (Later, the people at Hoodman finally got a clue and started making real eyecups for Canon cameras.) When I went to a Nikon system, I was grateful that Nikon continues to make real eyecups for its higher-end DSLRs. I was bummed to find that Fuji doesn't. But never say die. Again I've made my own using the stock X-T1 eyepieces, Nikon rubber eyecups, and the great adhesive product called Sugru — and as with the Canon cameras I'm glad I went to the trouble. (I wish I could buy not just the extended eyecup for the X-T1, but also the smaller one that comes with the camera — it's easier to work with.) But is this DIY business necessary? Does any third party make a real (round) rubber eyecup for the X-T1, attached to a proper-fitting slip-on eyepiece? I asked Hoodman about this, but they claimed in their reply that it costs about $100,000 to tool up for a new product — and they don't think the Fujifilm cameras are a big enough deal to make such a product worth their while. Maybe it isn't worth their while, but I would still think there's a market for a small but sometimes pretty important accessory like that.

Interesting. I haven't followed news of Sony's hardware and didn't realize both systems are available. So it has been done...

The I don't like the idea and nobody will ever use it | given choices people won't use them | I'd never use it so who cares | so it's a stupid idea mindset has never been a sufficient reason to dismiss an idea out of hand. I've seen that attitude so many times over the years in the software industry. It wasn't persuasive the first time I heard it, and it isn't persuasive now. But it's remarkable, how well nay-sayers can read the minds of millions of complete strangers. : ) Auto-focus? Look how lousy it is. Don't bother developing it further [that was the "professional" attitude when auto-focus first appeared; I remember, because I was there to see it]. On-line retailing? Stupid idea. Nobody will shop that way. Put a little car on Mars? Ridiculous. It'll never work. Electric car? Stupid idea. Nobody'd buy that. More than 640K memory? Absurd. Nobody'll ever need more than that. Only in a faerie world. LOL. The good news is that people with their eyes on the prize don't think that way. Now w.r.t. stabilization, whether a "dual" design would be economically feasible or worth the time to design is obviously a whole different matter. I can't know the minds of millions of strangers, either, but I'll bet that given such options, people would use them — even in a non-faerie world. : )

I don't think that's a sensible comparison, and potentially useful ideas merit better than facile dismissals. And one man's "aggravating" often turns out to be another man's "hmm -- interesting." Digital cameras are engineering marvels produced not by people who think this is stupid -- we shouldn't bother trying it but by people who think intriguing idea -- how can we do it? Fuji strikes me as a prime example of a company with that can-do mindset, and both they and their customers are reaping the benefits. It hardly takes a massive leap of imagination to think there could be a design permitting both kinds of stabilization, with the ability to automatically disable in-body stabilization when the OIS of a lens is switched on. Or switch OIS off and use the sensor-based stabilization if you prefer. Or use only in-body stabilization all the time. Or use neither. The fact that there's no camera doing such a thing now doesn't mean there couldn't be in the future. People have often used "but then the camera companies would be cutting into their own markets for stabilized lenses!" as an argument against in-body stabilization. I think that also represents a failure of imagination. Better way of looking at it: Design a best-of-both-worlds system. Given choices, people will make good use of them.

I haven't decided yet if I should think of Photo Ninja's user interface as "quirky" or "innovative." I notice that, compared with Lightroom, PN seems to render fine detail a bit better. But I have had ongoing problems with PN's adding a strange pink-ishness to images, in particular to skin tones, and that hasn't been easy to correct. I don't think (but I'm not sure) this is simply a white-balance issue. I don't see this "pink shift" problem at all with Lightroom. After upgrading to LR 6 (CC) I did not notice the kind of detail "smearing" that some people have reported with X-Trans files as processed in LR. It did a reasonable job with sharpening and noise reduction. So far these results seemed pretty satisfactory — and a professional photographer I've been corresponding with gave me a semi-stern, semi-friendly lecture: stop pixel peeping. I'm always saying that to people and then turn around and do it myself way too often. :-) C1 remains something of an unknown. I had a demo of v.8.2; it has now expired. I'm intimidated by the upgrade cost — but the same professional photographer who gave me the lecture raves about the high quality of C1 output. So I'm still tempted despite the cost.

I'm resigned (for now) to the X-T1 body's not having sensor-based IS — the benefits of the system outweigh that for me, though it certainly is a nice-to-have-it-if-you-can-get-it design. It's clear enough that enabling IS when the camera is mounted on a tripod is not a good idea...that's been discussed for years and seems to be the general consensus. What I'm not clear about is whether — as some people claim — IS can produce image degradation when you're hand-holding the camera. Surely that won't be true across-the-board. But if it's true in some situations — then which ones?