9.V.III

I've already clarified the issue twice in the same thread, and the slice of the user base represented here is some of the most enthusiastic of enthusiasts. It's virtually guaranteed that the average person is confused, and it has nothing to do with personal priorities. The existance of a 7lb sports and wildlife lens doesn't instantly turn your Fuji into a giant brick, but it does make Fuji the first mirrorless option for some of the biggest commercial photography jobs on Earth. Canon bases the release of their 1D bodies around the Summer Olympics, where Big Whites abound, if Fuji wants representation in these events they need the hardware. Hoping that Fuji breaks into new markets shouldn't be taken as an insult.

Being excited for high quality leightweight lenses is all fine and dandy but as long as we're posting in a thread about a large lens and people are making comparisons with big glass then pointing out the advantages of large lenses is the only correct thing to do.

If people didn't care then they wouldn't be talking about how wonderful 200f2.0 lenses are.My guess is 99.9% of viewers are still confused about Depth of Field and Light Gathering performance on crop systems. When Olympus talks about their high end zoom lens they make a broad statement about focal length: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/404517-REG/Olympus_261012_35_100mm_f_2_0_ED_Zuiko.htmlBut don't tell you that you're getting f4 equivalent DOF and light gathering. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183198-USA/canon_2578a002_ef_70_200mm_f_4l_usm.html The equivalent lens on Full Frame costs four times less and weighs half as much. When it comes to fast aperture lenses people need to be acutely aware of the implications of using a crop sensor or else they're basically getting ripped off.

Those companies haven't thrown any serious development into the category yet either. Both are rumored to be putting out high end mirrorless prodects this year, and Canon hasn't even implemented their Dual Pixel AF in an EOS-M body yet.The Mirrorless market isn't expanding photography, it's shifting the user base, as soon as Canon and Nikon offer a compelling MIrrorless body that integrates with their existing systems it's going to change the landscape. I almost bought a Fuji lens yesterday in anticipation of the X-T2 coming out this summer, good thing I didn't. This fall I'll be comparing bodies from Fuji, Canon and Sigma. At this point any one of them have an equal shot at getting my $$$. (Sigma is the wildcard, but they currently have the most affordable library of high end lenses on the market, with no signs of slowing down, all they need to do is make a reasonable body with reliable AF to complete a compelling first party system.)

Canon and Nikon 200f2.0 lenses are wonderful, and there's nothing you can do to make 135f2.0 come close to matching them.Canon and Nikon also make very good 200f2.8 lenses, which a Fuji 135f2.0 would be roughly equivalent to in terms of depth of field and light gathering. When comparing full frame specs to a crop system you need to adjust depth of field and light gathering too. When we're dealing with long lenses there's no escaping the fact that the best IQ comes from the biggest lenses.

We all know that Medium Format is the last frontier in image quality, eventually it will be standard for every studio that can afford it. If they could make a seamless quad APS-C sensor design it would probably cut a few thousand dollars off the price. It might even be cheaper than Full Frame at that point. But really it would make more sense to use vertical slices for a sensor array, first off you don't want a seam at the very center, and secondly the smaller they make each sensor the cheaper it will be, and at least it sounds better to keep the chips symmetrical. Alternatively, if BSI chips can be layed out in a grid without interfering with each other then you could panel as many tiny chips together as you could want, and it would be BSI, and then maybe they could make a "round" sensor that covers the whole image circle instead of forcing people into a given aspect ratio.

I just wish they would let us access all three batteries without removing the grip. Or maybe this one does?

It sucks that somebody lost their camera. Can Fuji get the auction pulled? That said, I like what I see. If Fuji can implement a voltage boost with the Grip for faster AF speeds my mind will explode. I suppose we should expect a "High Performance Mode" for the EVF, so the "boost" switch might be more likely to just involve the EVF and/or burst rate, but if it can overdrive lenses too that would be super amazing.

I think having the screen tilt in both directions could be nice but I might miss having a screen that points forward, we'll see. A good wireless solution would largely alleviate that problem for people recording video of themselves.

When I go hiking I carry the Canon 400f5.6 with an 1100D, not because it delivers the best IQ (though the crop sensor is usually not a disadvantage), but because putting a 5D on the same lens was twice as much hassle. The camera grip was constantly hitting my leg when carrying the camera by my side, and digging into my ribs when I had it clipped to my shoulder strap. Large lenses are still much easier to handle with a small body on the mount, that combined with Fuji's wonderful control layouts means that my ideal system would be a large telephoto lens with a Fuji body. If Nikon would make a crop version of the DF I probably wouldn't have any interest in Fuji, except that I still need a Mirrorless body to be able to focus large aperture lenses from Samyang. It's not unreasonable to want big lenses on a small body.

You can get $350 4K monitors at Monoprice, they've had stuff in that price range for about a year. They don't have high build quality but the image is decent. Apparently they should be releasing a higher quality IPS 4K monitor for around $500 in the next few months. If your primary application is just being able to see more of your pictures while you edit then something like that could save you a lot of money vs. buying a 4K laptop. As far as big screen TV's go, right now is just about the worst time you could buy 4K since UHD Bluray is about to launch this fall and right now only a few displays fully support the 10 bit colour and HDR features being implemented.

I don't care what day it is! I want the X-T2 PRO! The 42MP APS-C Sensor would be a dream come true.

This lens is still half the reason I keep coming back to look at Fuji Rumors. And as soon as we get an 18mm f1.0 to go along with it then those two lenses with an X-Pro 2 will comprise the perfect camera.

Some people dsimiss the "market saturation" angle for the shrinking high end market, but this thread says exactly that. I'm betting bodies like the X-Pro2 will see multi-generational use if they don't short circuit first. (I say ditch the X-Pro 1, jump in with both feet, Fuji made a lot of very practical improvements here, but the X-Pro 3 is going to have a very steep hill to climb.)

The X-T1 is only dropping about $50 per year, maybe the X-E2 is going a little faster but the point stands that this is a young system and each new step is a big deal right now.

Fuji cameras in seem to maintian value, in this case I think it's particularly worthwhile waiting for the latest model since the idea of getting a discount later doesn't seem to be as applicable. Especially when we know Fuji is upgrading sensors for the first time with the X system. I think the maturity of the system makes a big difference too, the latest models are going to have much better handling. Viewfinder blackout for example, it seems like Fuji got that right with the X-Pro2 and past models were somewhat limiting for continuous shooting.

That's all fine and dandy, but statements like this: Make it sound like you expect 300mm f2.8 Full Frame image quality out of a cropped 200mm f2.8 lens.I'm not saying that's what you were thinking, but a lot of other people will be thinking that. In the mirrorless market it is common for manufacturers and consumers to talk about exposure in terms of image noise, low light being one of the most common applications of fast aperture lenses, thus I wanted to clarify that the "light gathering" you were talking about is different from the common application of the term in regard to total image noise.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=15315 Same pixels, more area, one stop advantage. TDP has some amazing tools and thankfully the laws of physics don't change between systems. Inversely, here's a test chart comparing the 1DX and 5DS at the same image size. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Noise.aspx?Camera=779&Test=2&ISO=12800&CameraComp=980&TestComp=1&ISOComp=12800 At the same image size the 5DS is slightly noisier than the 1DX. Which maybe should be expected given that the 1DX is one of the best low light camera bodies ever produced, but it also sounds totally bizarre given the common assumptions people make about "low light" focused and "landscape" oriented sensors. And here's the 7D2 and 5DS at ISO 12800... Yikes. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Noise.aspx?Camera=963&Test=0&ISO=12800&CameraComp=980&TestComp=1&ISOComp=12800

APS-C sensors have twice as much noise at a given ISO.

I think the term "light gathering" needs to be corrected here. While an f2.8 aperture is the same whether you're on crop or full frame, the crop sensor has half as much surface area, so light gathering is a stop less (actually it's 1.23 stops less https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format). f2.8 on crop is effectively the same as f4 in full frame terms, both in light gathering and DOF.

F1.0 is one stop faster than f1.4, and wide angle SLR lenses are humungous because of the flange distance, thus Fuji makes an 18mm F2.0 Pancake.So, two stops brighter than the Pancake. The big question is if the lack of retrofocusing elements actually helps. Apparently the Sigma 50mm Art is actually a retrofocusing design even though it's longer than the flange distance, so sticking to 18mm may or may not be of benefit. For all we know the 16mm f1.4 might just the best wide angle f1.4 formula Fuji could come up with. At least we know an 18f1.0 would be popular with the Astro crowd if the Coma is well controlled.

With the recent rumors of a 33f1.0, I've been thinking about how great it would be to have an f1.0 wide angle Prime, something that really matches the 24mm Full Frame standard. Or at least 27mm equivalent, if it would be any benefit to stay within the limitations of the 18mm flange distance.

Fuji really just needs to make a premium 85f1.4 (which would effectively be 127mm f2). If the 56mm had been f1.0 then I might see the TC being a reasonable companion, but as is a 2xTC takes the 56f1.2 to f2.4, which sounds kind of slow for a high end portrait lens when you can get 200f2.8 lenses for not a lot of money.

I have yet to read anything that says it's possible to make a telephoto lens smaller for a crop body. Mirrorless systems have an advantage with lenses shorter than 40mm because they don't require extra lens elements to compensate for having a flange distance longer than the focal length, but that doesn't help telephoto lenses. Telephoto lenses can be made smaller, but not in a way that would benefit a Mirrorless system. Canon is actually leading the pack in compact supertelephoto lenses with their recent Diffractive Optics models, last year they showed a prototype 600mm DO lens that's about 40% smaller than the current model. Unfortunately it's taken them over ten years to release a DO lens with IQ similar to non-DO lenses so I wouldn't count on too many companies adopting that tech too quickly. I've been trying to think about ways that a crop lens would have an advantage, but there really isn't any way around it. If you want the same light gathering for a given field of view, you're facing pretty much exactly the same challenges whether it's crop or full frame. People can say that a 300f2.8 on crop is like having a 450f2.8, but as far as your exposure is concerned, you're still working with a stop less light than f2.8 on Full Frame. You can compensate for this by making a 300f2.0 to equalize the exposure, but then your lens is almost exactly the same size as the 400f2.8. I guess by nature of it being a 300mm lens and not 400mm, you've cut a few inches off the length, but it'll be practically the same in every other regard. The only thing you really gain on crop is cheaper sensors, everything else is a balance of give and take. (And I should add that I am specifically attracted to Fuji because they seem to take that balance seriously, there's no pretending that a severely cropped 25f1.4 is as good as a 50f1.4, if these rumors of a 33f1.0 and 200f2.0 are true, and especially if they're working on a 300f2.0, then Fuji is actually aiming to play ball on the highest level instead of pretending that you're giving people something for nothing.)

Your comment is rude and off topic.