Aswald

Buyer's remorse? Essentially it's just higher mpix, slightly faster AF and oh....the turbo charged battery grip.  

Buyer's remorse? Essentially it's just higher mpix, slightly faster AF and oh....the turbo charged battery grip.  

I don't know why but people get offended about almost everything nowadays.......perhaps the truth hurts sometimes and yeah, it's always easier to make it someone else's problem rather than our own. IMO, the title and the pic is very powerful. Definitely thought provoking...whether it is acceptable or not depends on who and where you are.

Discover The Mostly Used Lenses (+ Settings) by X-Shooters on Their Fujifilm X-Cameras :: Explorecams Extended Features!
 
All the details on FujiRumors: http://www.fujirumors.com/discover-mostly-used-lenses-settings-x-shooters-fujifilm-x-cameras-explorecams-extended-features/
 
Site here: https://explorecams.com/

It is now sent for focus collar replacement! 

Unless you have precision press machine, I wouldn't advice you to try yourself.
 
I would stop using this lens immediately and send it in for checks and a focus collar replacement by Fujifilm.
 
If you continue to force the focus collar, you may damage something internally. It's probably just pinched focus assembly at the moment but even then it may cause metal shavings in your lens.

#1 impression
 
 

In prints! I'm one of those people who believes a photograph isn't a photograph unless it is printed. Otherwise it is a graphic representation of 1's and 0's. :-)
 
I do fine art printing for clients, and my own work. I print files from many different brands and models of cameras. The 24mp Fuji sensor has really impressed me more than I thought it would in comparing it with some of the heavy-hitter sensors out there today. I won't even mention some of the files I think it is "better than" because you either wouldn't believe me, and/or write me off as a Fuji fan-boy, which I'm very much "not so much." :-)
 
Rand

Perhaps, Fujifilm is still relatively young compared to Nikon. In a couple of years, it'll be complete to compete with the big boys.
 
I like what you've achieved with your IR X-Pro1. Nice.
 
http://eng.roguski.eu/2016/09/27/fujifilm-x-t1-ir-black-white-in-infrared/

I have been shooting B&W both with a 35 mm Pentax and a Mamiya 645 and have enjoyed the darkroom work, partly because I understand chemistry but am pretty poor with computers. However recently, particularly having explored my X-10, Iam being forced to admit that the digital results, to equal those of film. The only  possible exceptions to this wold be the actual   feel of fibre based darkroom prints cf. digital prints, and the results obtainable in wet chemistry with lith printing. However, whether it is worthwhile keeping a room in a normal home as a darkroom simply for this is debatable!
 
Richard

that guy at cameraegg reads FujiRumors http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/4119-breaking-full-details-of-fujifilm-x-pro2-firmware-update-200-leaked-%E2%80%93-available-october-6/

BREAKING :: Full Details of Fujifilm X-Pro2 Firmware Update 2.00 LEAKED – Available October 6!
 
http://www.fujirumors.com/breaking-full-details-fujifilm-x-pro2-firmware-update-2-00-leaked-available-october-6/

Yes, there is something about film that is not easily replicated in digital. The grain is one contributing factor. Digital noise is not the same at all. Fuji's attempt to replicate it in the X-T2 doesn't work very well. Digital isn't inferior to film though, just different.

the sensor is the same Sony sensor for everybody... Fujifilm just "designed" a special microlens on the surface of the sensor
 
that's at least what I read in this dpreview interview: http://www.fujirumors.com/fujifilm-gfx-dpreview-interviews-fuji-manager-toshihisa-iida-design-challanges-future-adapters-lot/

Hahaha......tell me about it!

That's a lot of images!

I'm seeing the same thing.
 
Here's a question. Which on has better bokeh, a 16mp aps-c sensor or a 24mp aps-c sensor?

Thanks, you're way too kind!

Yes, definitely pass. Mold is something you just can't get rid off, no matter how often and how well you wash it, it will be back.

Mold is an infection and it comes back because fungus, yeasts and things like these are the toughest organisms on earth, able to stay dormant when things are dad and to come back as soon as conditions allow it.

My workflow for the best looking shots, or at least the ones that appear to potentially be among the best, is now to stitch (with the camera in portrait orientation, using a super small rail + the L bracket) anything from 3 to 5 pictures taken with the A7r.
 
This does two things: first I can potentially print them huge, or at more reasonable sizes but with excellent sharpness; secondly I can use not-so-exceptional lenses that I like nonetheless a lot for their rendering - like the 50/1.5 Jupiter 3 - and still get sharper pictures that if I'd used a Zeiss 55/1.8 single-shot at any given print size.
 
If instead Canon plans to let us capture this amount of detail in just one shot, so with an extremely small pixel pitch, they better come up first with both a global electronic shutter, otherwise the shutter shock will most likely be atrocious; a kick ass sensor or lens based stabilization for when you're shooting handheld, and a range of extremely good primes under 50mm, otherwise all those pixels will be massively wasted at anything but the dead center of the frame.
 
There is too much mushy stuff on flickr already

Shooting film is still enjoyable and perfectly useable for a pro, if you so please. No need to "prove" anything, if it's your preference, just go shoot it.

Well, I use both film and digital but film's resolution is not that high. Also, you need a great scanner to get that resolution which cost tons of money just for the scanner. You need to get a scanner program like silver fast too. 
 
The versatile of digital is way better than film. 

Theoretical vs practical going on here - I guess they're basing their assumption on the fact that there are a known number of pixels at a known size on a sensor, whereas film has a potentially vastly greater numbers of much smaller unexposed silver halide grains randomly spread in an emulsion, therefore allowing them to completely and randomly cover every part of the sensitive material to a considerable depth, and not just the single layer of pixels (or three layers in the case of Foveon) as with digital.
 
Of course this changes during the exposure and processing procedure - digital loses nothing in number, order or arrangement of its pixels, whereas film increasingly exposes fewer and fewer halides in the shadow areas, and clumps more and more together in the highlight areas. The resulting film "grain" chops the image up, particularly in those areas, and if you are photographing highly complex fine and contrasty detail it will probably run into trouble well before digital does. The exposed halides are reduced to metallic silver grains which are "developed" to a size that gives the image visible density and can thus be printed. They are no longer so tiny as their silver halide origins, the unexposed and therefore undeveloped portion of which are dissolved away in the fixing process.
 
That said, well exposed, properly processed fine-grain film of subject matter that does not have too higher dynamic range and is largely comprised around tones of 18% grey will more than likely be able to stand much higher enlargement, if only for the fact that its grain is random and therefore does not form regular patterns such as in digital where "jaggies" effectively put a ceiling on enlargement capability as soon as they become apparent at normal viewing distance. The eye more readily accommodates the random grain of film, both because regular patterns like a sensor array are rare in the natural world, and there also is a much longer history of photographs produced with film than with sensors, so familiarity plays a role (although that is diminishing with time). Digital noise has, for most of its earlier development been jarring to look at.
 
Like comparing lenses of different focal lengths between different digital camera formats, comparing film with digital is every bit as pointless. Each does its own unique thing in use, and it's up to the user to choose that which best suits the purpose at hand.
 
If, for instance, you were to take a well exposed and processes 8x10" collodion plate photograph and compare it with a digital file from any sized commercial sensor and compare a 30x40 print from each, the digital file will fail miserably. In practical terms, collodion plates became redundant in the late 19th century for some exceedingly good reasons. Carrying a full darkroom around with you and having to coat the glass plate with fresh emulsion and expose and process it it while it was still wet did limit its practicality somewhat.

It seems like comparing line pairs of film resolution to two pixels linearly is not the right comparison.  I may be missing something though.