JaapD

sorry, my mistake. I'm talking about my experiences with the X-T1 while the subject clearly is X-T2 related. Apologies! Apart from this it still could be firmware related though....

I have also had a few freezes. My idea is that it has nothing to do with the batteries or the cards (unless you get a ‘card error’ of course) but with the latest firmware release. I never had any freezes with previous firmware releases, only with the latest one, while using Fuji batteries and Sandisk cards. A firmware related freeze is by no means a strange phenomenon as it controls the FPGA timing as well as state machine coding (how to handle undefined states and what to do when the software mistakenly jumps to it). To me chances of a software bug are much more likely then a battery or card related issue. In order to get things more clear how about mentioning your firmware release as well? That just might give a lead to the root cause of failure….

I expect it won't take long before the Radio-Controlled Nissin i60A with the Nissin Air 1 Commander for Fuji gets released. With this you'll get full TTL control over max 3 remotely controlled flash units. Godox seems also working at a Fuji implementation of their AD360-II with the X1F TTL transmitter. I have no actual release dates for both products, maybe both products get released at then Photokina. Both look promising to me so let's wait and see.

Waiting for the PC version of Iridient, or C1 with fully functioning lens corrections for the X-Pro2 & X-T2, whichever comes first....

I find the X-T2 vertical grip plain UGLY. I don't like the design as it is on both ends wider than the camera itself and does not follow the camera curves. Then there is that grip itself on the right front side which is in my opinion not close enough to the camera body leaving a gap in between. The vertical grip of the X-T1 is much, much more in line with the camera design itself. Having said this, the other side of my brain convinces me that a camera is a 'tool' and I'm sure I will buy the grip anyway

I think that C1 has by far the best X-Trans RAW conversion. However, without proper lens corrections I have as paying customer zero use for C1 because lens corrections are mandatory for lenses like the 16-55 f/2.8. If I were head of the C1 development team I would be embarrassed by now. These new Fuji adaptations (reading the lens correction parameters from the X-Pro2 RAW file) simply take them too much effort to implement. And then there is the already mentioned missing auto mask functionality but also think about the fact that there is no Opengl / Opencl processing on Fuji RAWs, meaning that all processing is done only by the CPU. Your high performance graphics card is sitting doing nothing. Maybe they should let Iliah (Fast Raw Viewer) write some code for them as he very well knows his stuff. Until C1 gets its act together I’ll stick with my X-T1 as with this camera the lens corrections work just fine and for me I’m much better off with an X-T1 with lens corrections than with an X-T2 without lens corrections.

In an ideal situation you would have a tripod and no IBIS. For those less ideal situations in life IBIS has most certainly an added value. So Hassleblad (!) is correct but not telling the complete story here.

The camera looks great but I find the grip plain ugly. At the left side it’s sticking out and at the right side where your fingers are positioned there is that gap between the grip and camera. It’s by no means integrated into the camera design such as with the X-T1. I have to remind myself that a camera is a ‘tool’ and not an object to look at. I’m sure at ‘tool’ level it will satisfy my needs. Nevertheless, if I was head of product development at Fuji I would have re-done the design of the grip.

I’m also interested in a wireless TTL solution for Fuji. I’m currently waiting for the following product to become available. The Sony version gets already shipped and I expect it won’t take long anymore: Radio-Controlled Nissin i60A for Fuji + Nissin Air 1 Commander for Fuji.

Most likely your mac has renamed the file. The correct name is "FWUP0008.DAT". If necessary manually rename the file and you should be fine.

Thanks for your reply. It is of course required to use a formatted card, otherwise the card won't be readable in the first place. It is not mentioned that only one file should be put on the card. Since all upgrade files have their unique name (i.e. FWUP0001.DAT, FWUP0005.DAT, XFUP0018.DAT, etc) I expect the camera kwows what file to select for upgrade. When I want to upgrade all my different cameras and lenses, can I then put all upgrade files in one go onto an SD card, then put it into the camera and let the camera decide what file it needs. What do you think?

When I want to upgrade all my different cameras and lenses, can I then put all upgrade files in one go onto an SD card, then put it into the camera and let the camera decide what file it needs (i.e. FWUP0001.DAT, FWUP0005.DAT, XFUP0018.DAT, etc)?

If Ken is unimpressed then it starts becoming an interesting product, at least something worth to consider for you and me. The thing is that 'Ken' generates traffic. We're discussing him, some are visiting his website, and this is exactly what he tries to achieve. Nothing else! He is not interested in having a correct opinion himself and why should he? It would result in less traffic and be counter effective.

An XF 8-16mmF2.8 WR would be great, resulting in the holy trinity of: 8-16 f/2.8 16-55 f/2.8 50-140 f/2.8 I think Fuji owe it to themselves to complete their 'PRO' product line. I would buy an XF 8-16mmF2.8 WR instantly!

Let’s think for a moment where the necessity of a mirror came from. As you know it came from the film days where our need was to look directly through the same lens that is going to make the actual picture so that in advance we can see exactly what image (composition, focus, depth of field, no parallax) we are going to make. Nowadays for this we don’t need a mirror anymore. Instead, we even get new functionality with mirrorless such as exposure preview and more. Regarding Fuji’s medium format camera: I hope it will going to be an XXL version of one of Fujis’s current cameras, a bit like the idea (not more than that and not that large!) of a Mamiya7 or a Pentax67.

I think the next X-T1 camera update is a ‘required’ update, directly related to the added functionality of newly announced products like the x2 converter and the flash.

In some aspects, for instance when shooting at f/5.6, the 16-55 mm is better than the 16mm. In order to compare the 16 and 56 mm versus 16-55 mm I find this a good site: http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/fujinon/xf-16-55mm-f2.8-r-lm-wr/review/ http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/fujinon/xf-16mm-f1.4-r-wr/review/ http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/fujinon/xf-56mm-f1.2-r/review/ If you don't need anything faster than f/2.8 I can highly recommend the 16-55mm. When shooting RAW you do need to have a RAW converter utilizing automated lens corrections (CaptureOne, Adobe, Silky, RFC), taking care of pincushion, barrel and chromatic distortions.

I already like everything I see here, especially the vertical grip with its own focus stick!

I already like everything I see here, especially the vertical grip with its own focus stick!

I completely lost interest in this flash after reading its specifications, especially because its wireless communication type is ‘optical’. This is old-school technology. The latest flashes all have built-in radio communication which is much more robust and also works around the corner. I have set my goals to the upcoming Nissin i60A.

I understand Fuji’s decision as far as ‘macro’ goes. A 120mm macro (180mm FF) is a bit too much tele. On the other hand I think it is a real pity that we’re not getting a 180mm f/2.8 tele lens. I think such lens would perfectly fit in Fuji’s lens roadmap. There is room for 200mm f/2.8 (300mm FF) and 270mm f/2.8 (400mm FF) lenses and I hope Fuji also sees that there are gaps to fill.

People have different expectations with ‘mirrorless’. Most seem to think that it is equivalent to ‘small’. I don’t know who said that, where this was coming from or who have convinced them that this is the case. Possibly the 4/3 camera range is responsible for this, but here it’s also about sensor size as we all know. When defining 'mirrorless' myself I only think of ‘no-mirror’ (no autofocus offset errors anymore, no unsharpness caused by flappy mirror) and ‘EVF’ (with all its advantages and disadvantages, improving incrementally until in the end it will surpass OVF).

Regarding the “16:9 crop”; this is one of Adobe’s default settings that you can easily change. I had the same thing with my ACR settings that was initially 16:9 and 8 bit capture.

Mostly Medium format lenses aren’t that fast. Some have a max opening of ‘only’ f/2.8. One can realize exactly the same field of view and depth of field, here is an example (rounded numbers): - Medium format, 80mm lens, shooting at f/5.6. - 35mm format, 50mm lens, shooting at f/4. - APS-C format, 35mm lens, shooting at f/2.8. So, when you refer to a certain medium format shot and know the applied lens and opening you can directly convert this to an APC-C format getting exactly the same results (apart from the pixel quantity). It all boils down to a few basic optics rules: When you double the length and height of the sensor (4x the size) then you’ll need to double the focus length of the lens in order to get the same field of view. When you also want to get the same depth of field then you need to increase by one f-stop.

What you say is correct. A mechanical shutter draws more power than an electronic shutter. An electronic shutter is nothing more than a control voltage (reset-gate) and lets the built up charge drain to the sensor substrate. This draws almost no power, possibly only a bit during high frame rates (because of the capacitive load of the switching) but even then it's significantly less that with a mechanical shutter.