petergabriel

Funny this thread is still alive. I’m still happy with my x-pro2, but am still considering getting an x-e1 for that marvelous sensor, and the slightly bigger EVF. However, as I have started shooting vintage lenses, I remember how unimpressive the focus peaking was on my x-pro1, and it is hardly better on the x-e1, and then I’m back to keeping my x-pro2, where focus peaking is quite good. Ah well...

I have become quite fond of using my x-pro2 and x-pro1 in manual focus peaking mode, as I find it much faster to focus the area I want in focus, as opposed to fiddle with the joystick. However, doing so I tend to - what people refer to in AF mode - hunt a bit before I nail focus. This makes a noise from the lens so obviously it activates its focus motors whenever I turn the focus ring. My question is therefore; does manual focus use more battery when focusing compared with AF that usually locks on fast to whatever the focus point is set to. I mean I’m not a computer, so turning the focus ring probably results in a lot more lens focus hunting than in AF mode.

Hi I have become quite fond of using my x-pro2 and x-pro1 in manual focus peaking mode, as I find it much faster to focus the area I want in focus, as opposed to fiddle with the joystick. However, doing so I tend to - what people refer to in AF mode - hunt a bit before I nail focus. This makes a noise from the lens so obviously it activates its focus motors whenever I turn the focus ring. My question is therefore; does manual focus use more battery when focusing compared with AF that usually locks on fast to whatever the focus point is set to. I mean I’m not a computer, so turning the focus ring probably results in a lot more lens focus hunting than in AF mode.

Luminar DAM will come as a free update for Luminar 2018 in 2018. Looks promising.

Yes, apparently the Windows version is lackluster, however Luminar has promised it will be up to Mac “speed” in January. I came from Apple Aperture. Tried using Apple Photos. I absolutely hate LRs bulky interface.

Just started using Luminar 2018 and so far I like at lot. Beautiful, uncluttered interface, nice adjustment tools and overall fast performance. Except loading the Fujifilm RAW files (both compressed and uncompressed). Extremely slow! I have compared it to Picktorial which is at least 5 times faster, so its not my system that is the culprit. I hope they will speed up loading in future updates, as I really like Luminar. Also, Luminar seems to handle the RAF files much better, IQ wise.

The reason I sold my 50mm and bought the 56mm is because of the orange color cast of the 50mm. I just don’t like it and don’t want to spend time in post removing it. To me the 56mm is more neutral, just like the 23mm f1.4, and has in my opinion more of that elusive micro contrast. To me, the 50mm images just look cheaper - if that makes sense.

Apparently it will be some sort of preview. Given the usb2 connection of the camera I’m eager to see the quality of that preview. If it doesn’t fully represent the final product the software is kind of useless. A 5 sec. transfer is fine by me if that is all per picture, and once you are done with the edit, metadata is sent to the camera for processing into jpeg. I don’t think tiff will be an option.

Processing speed in camera is used. And it should be blazing fast given that you can take a min. of 8 frames/sec on your x-pro2/x-t2 which are instantly compressed to jpeg.

Doesn’t make sense. Then the fifth version will also be an F.

Being able to process RAW images at lightning speed using the hardware in e.g. an x-pro2 is pretty awesome. Way faster than any computer software on most consumer computers. And no more discontent with the look of the jpegs produced by the many different RAW converters on the market. This way you can process them the Fujifilm way, like in camera, but on a big screen. And you can still do it on the cameras 3" screen if no computer is around.

Being able to process your RAW files using your x-camera on a big screen sounds awesome to me. This has to be the best way to get those truly awesome out of camera jpegs looking even better being able to fine tune the parameters on a big screen. No more LR etc. Great move from Fujifilm!

You should. Both lenses are pretty cheap used as many people sell them when they can't find a way to use them.

I have tried almost all the f2 lenses and at first I find the image quality great (which it is), but then when I go through my photo library, everytime a image pops out with that extra special rendering/character, its one of the f1.4 lenses, and I remember why I fell in love with Fujifilm colors in the first place - starting with the x100s.

Great comparison. I fully agree with your findings. And actually think they can be transferred to the other Fujinon f2's excl. the 90mm. I have just ordered the 56mm f1.2 and will be selling my 50mm f2 for the exact same reasons; that wonderful color rendering it shares with my 14mm, 35mm f1.4 and 23mm f1.4. Those lenses are simply in a league of their own.

35mm f1.4 by far.

Remembter the close focusing '"blurrines" of the f2 :-)

All great shots. But I am still not sure whether is too specialized for my needs and therefore will be used only seldom.

The new 50mm f2 has a warm rendering, it wouldn't say the 35mm f1.4 is warm, it just has this very beautiful tonality in the gradients.

So, the 90mm is great for sports and portraits. What else might it be used for? Examples appreciated :-)

I would go: 14mm f2.8 - tack sharp, lovely rendering 35mm f1.4 - tack sharp, sweet rendering 50mm f2 - extremely sharp, great bokeh, punchy I'm still considering the 90mm which just might replace the 50mm.

There is a real punch to the images. Love the lens. I have actually set shadows, highlight, volor to -1 on my x-pro2 to tame the contrasty images of the 27mm. Great little lens. Very underrated.

Is it the mkII version?

Yes, the x-pro1 is a lovely camera. Great shots.

I set highlights, shadows and color to -1. Close enough for me, but varies from lens to lens. The 27mm looks amazing with those settings. Always found it a bit too contrasty and over saturated.