petergabriel

Hmm, I actually think the camera does a great job. Iso 6400 has no waxy skin tones. Looks like grain.

Perfect. I am convinced. What is your NR set to?

How about a shot of a person? Fujifilm high iso is great until you use it with human skin where it gets that horrible waxy look.

I absolutely love my x-pro 1's rendering. Very film like without the horrible waxy skin that I hated on my x100s and x100t. However, the camera is not the fastest around, so when the x-pro 2 came around and reports started coming that the waxy skin was gone with the x trans 3 sensor I was happy and ready for a purchase. That was until dpreview in their list of cons stated that the waxy skin was still there. Huh?! So what is it? Is the waxy skin still there in high iso jpegs? I shoot raw + jpeg fine, but only keep the raw as a sort of negative as I hate post processing. I prefer jpegs sooc! So shooting raw to eliminate waxy skin is not an option for me.

I find my x-pro 1 with x-trans 1 produces better images than my x100t with x-trans 2. The x-trans 2 has the terrible waxy skin at high iso and I hate it. Now you state that x-trans 3 has more noise and look plasticy at high iso as well and so did dpreview. I am beginning to have second thoughts about buying the xt2. Damn!

Adzman is spot on :-) Seems like you are right, it only works in manual focus. Maybe I remember wrong when I thought my x100t did in AF as well. Ah well, in manual mode is better than nothing.

I own an x-pro 1 and I can't seem to find the function I had on my x100t where I could click the right thumb click wheel to zoom the AF area chosen - to make sure I nailed AF. I often need it for my 14mm f2.8 as it often seems like everything is in perfect focus when its actually not.

I also got a x-pro 1 only a couple of months old for a really good price, and I absolutely love it. Been spending my money on lenses instead.

I don't see how pictures like that tries to replicate my issue. The scenes are nothing like holding a hand 40 cm's from the lens and having the camera show green focus square even though my hand is a complete blur. There is nothing wrong with my technique as I did the same test with same lenses on my x-pro 1 with a secure focus lock and my hand actually being in focus. Same goes for the x100t and x70, but I feel like I am repeating myself here.

Nice set of pictures, but doesn't really prove anything regarding my op.

Does any of the other Fujinon lenses have that magic rendering the 35mm f1.4 is so loved fore? I like my 23mm f1.4 a lot, but it has a more clinical way of seeing things. I do like sharpness, which most Fujinons offer in spades, but rendering is the most important parameter for as I do as little post as possible. I am a sucker for sooc images.

Well, seems like we will never reach a conclusion on this topic. However having owned my xpro1 for months now and using it with the 35mm f1.4, 23mm f1.4 and 18-55 f2.8-4 I have yet to see my hand focus test fail. The xpro1 nails it every time, as my x100t and s, as well as the x70 did. Testing the xpro2 twice in the store it constantly failed the same hand focus test, so guess I will wait to see how the x-t2 (and xpro2) fares in the AF department once the latest and greatest firmware comes out in October.

Thanks, Bjørn. Nice review.

The f1.4 is optically better. AF wise they are very close. The f1.4 AF motor however is quite noisy. I can live with that because of the superb IQ.

I would find a used 35mm f1.4 if I were you. I don't care what people say about the 35mm f2 being better than the f1.4 IQ wise. It simply isn't! The rendering on the f1.4 is unique AND it has optically corrected distortion = no distortion! The f2 is an imberrasment distortion wise - and yes, I don't care whether it is corrected via software. As for the 16mm I have owned it. And returned it. Just didn't like it. To big. IQ fine, but nothing special. The 23mm f1.4 is a keeper. I hate its size and weight, but the image quality is just plain awesome. And it has been optically corrected when it comes to distortion. I bet the new 23mm f2 is not. Even Fujifilm call their f2 lenses inferior to their f1.4 counterparts.

I did mean volume deformation, hence distortion in "" :-) What I mean by peoples shots with 14 or 16 mm is, if there are people in a shot, will the 16mm volume deform the same way as some of you warn about when people are to close to the edge on the 14mm?

Is the 16mm better for shots with people in them, compared to the 14mm, or do they both "distort" faces if to close to the edges?

Is this a Fuji X lenses topic? :-)

What are the rendering characteristics of the Fujinon XF lenses. I am not the only one who loves the 35mm f1.4's rendering, so are any of the other XF lenses rendering like it? Here are my observations: 35mm f1.4 - the magic lens, with a very cinematic rendering where colors, light and sharpness is quite beautiful - almost like vintage lenses from the 1970's. 23mm f1.4 - a lovely lens, very sharp and with - in my opinion - a more neutral rendering. 18-55 f2.8-4 - very sharp lens with a warm rendering. What are your thoughts?

Because I bought it used very cheap, and it works 95% of the time.

Does x-pro 1 have a bigger EVF than x100T? I didn't know that. I sold my x100T and got a used x-pro 1, but didn't notice. Only noticed lower resolution. I am so happy with my switch from x100T to x-pro 1. I miss the face detecting though. But the battery life is SO much better on x-pro 1.

I have the latest firmware, that came a few months ago. I think I will just shoot without OIS in proper light, maybe my hands are as steady as a tripod :-)

Interesting article. Seems I an not crazy :-) I will turn OIS off until absolutely needed. Thanks.

Great shots, Jorge. The Dry tortuga looks fantastic. However I still find the bokeh of the 16mm a bit to busy. Besides that, the 16mm sure is a nice lens, which I have already owned. Found it to big. That's why I'm looking into the 14mm which is often very cheap used where I live. Like half price from new in mint condition. And I don't need its pseudo macro capabilities :-) I just came home from vactioning in Skopelos, Greece where I used the 18mm end of the XF 18-55 f2.8-4 a lot and often found I needed it to be a little wider, so maybe the 14mm is to wide and the 16mm just perfect. Perhaps if Fujifilm made a smaller 16mm f2 I would be happy. Can't decide :-( Is the 16mm better for peoples shots than the 14mm, given a lot of you say that people look funny if to close to the edge of the frame on the 14mm? Does the 16mm "distort" the same way?

On some occasions - especially at the 18mm end - it seems like the OIS blurs my images. I can get like 3 in a row that are slightly blurred and then when I switch off the OIS the next images I shoot (same motives from same position) look just fine. Pin sharp. The pictures are taken in bright dayligt with high shutter speed and the motive is people 2-3 meters away from me. I have never seen the issue on the tele end and sometimes OIS seems to work just at the 18mm end as well. OIS is set on my x-pro 1 to continuous. This makes me wonder if I would be better off swithing OIS off during the day and only use it when the shutter speed gets to slow, as it seems to be a little to active for my liking.