Jump to content

Recommended Posts

My understanding was that Acros is processor intensive and if they put it in existing cameras it would be too slow. In the interview I read, the Fuji rep said that is why it will not be coming to any of the other current cameras. So I assume that the X-T2 with the new processor will also have Acros. I sure hope so!

 

I think you are right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if they announce in july, units start shipping in sept is my guess. 

 

With the X-Pro2, they kept it under wraps (VERY succesfully, I'll add) until the last second.

 

For the X-T2, I'd speculate:

 

1) Announcement, probably with some product photos and specs, in late June

2) Get it in the hands of X-Photographers covering the Olympics; since this is supposed to be a sports as well as video oriented camera

3) Presentation of final product and availability announcement in Photokina

4) In stores 3-4 weeks later

 

This will help to build up expectations in the public and give them enough time to iron-out possible bugs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1080p is yesterday's technology. Would they really build an updated model without 4K? ...even the phones have 4K now.

I don't even know what 4K does, and I love my Fuji cameras. If I would want to shoot video, I would buy a video camera.

 

I guess I am not alone in not desiring video, or other (to me) gimmicks, in my camera. As long as Fuji builds great photo cameras, I am happy with them.

 

But I probably would not buy a X-T camera anyway; I would miss the OVF.

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Edited by johant
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even know what 4K does, and I love my Fuji cameras. If I would want to shoot video, I would buy a video camera.

 

I guess I am not alone in not desiring video, or other (to me) gimmicks, in my camera. As long as Fuji builds great photo cameras, I am happy with them.

 

But I probably would not buy a X-T camera anyway; I would miss the OVF.

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

they are more people that want high quality 4k video in their X-T2 than those who do not.  Video capability does not affect photo performance in any way.   Your reason for not wanting video is completely ignorant. 

Edited by d750guy
Link to post
Share on other sites

they are more people that want high quality 4k video in their X-T2 than those who do not. Video capability does not affect photo performance in any way. Your reason for not wanting video is completely ignorant.

Well, I am not those people, and I am a Fuji customer ... as long as Fuji creates great photo cameras, I'm happy. If you feel that's ignorant, so be it. I think there are enough brands that create cameras for the video enthusiasts, so it's not like they have no choice.

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Edited by johant
Link to post
Share on other sites

they are more people that want high quality 4k video in their X-T2 than those who do not.  Video capability does not affect photo performance in any way.

 

 

I'm not sure that is true. For example, will adding 4K video mean having to make the camera body bigger to deal with the excess heat? If so, I'm not necessarily happy about that even though I want to shoot video sometimes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

they are more people that want high quality 4k video in their X-T2 than those who do not.  Video capability does not affect photo performance in any way.   Your reason for not wanting video is completely ignorant.

 

I think you are wrong. None of my friends using fuji cameras is interested in video. The question was how we could use the video button for something more important.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be fine when the X-T2 has 4K videos if 1) it does not make the camera more expensive, 2) it does not make the camera bulkier, and 3) it does not lead to reduced ergonomics for photo taking. Otherwise; leave the whatever video out, and focus on creating a high quality photo camera.

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that is true. For example, will adding 4K video mean having to make the camera body bigger to deal with the excess heat? If so, I'm not necessarily happy about that even though I want to shoot video sometimes. 

 

do you have a source that says 4k video will make the camera bigger?  There are plenty of small mirrorless 4k cameras that don't overheat (see panasonic and samsung) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are a few misconceptions regarding heat produced when "computer processors" do certain tasks

 

Just because a "NEW" product does something an old product did not do, does not mean it will produce more heat.

 

All modern cameras have a Processor inside, however newer camera equipment with newer processors, are almost certainly made on a smaller die, or a refined process.
 

Both of which reduce power usage (heat output) when completing the same task as an older generation.

 

Will recording at 4K use more power (and produce more heat) than recording at 1080p on the same device - almost certainly
Will recording at 4K use more power (and produce more heat) than recording at 1080p on a older device - due to processor advancements not necessarily.

 

The same goes if I encode a 4K video on my 3 year old workstation it uses more power, and produces more heat than if I encode at 1080p; However, if I upgraded my workstation with a brand new processor, due to advancements I would not be able to confirm if encoding at 4K on a new workstation uses more power or less power than encoding at 1080p on an old workstation, however I would not be surprised if it used less! 

 

I have not seen any documentation regarding power usage for the new X-Pro processor compared to the EXR II Processor, either maximum or typical

 

tldr

 

better video quality does not necessarily mean more power usage/heat output

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • The backslashes you are referring are just symbols denoting path.  Once you import into these LUTS into Davinci Resolve those backslashes are removed by default and you only see is the true file name which has no backslashes.  Convince yourself of this by opening the LUT folder from the Davinci Resolve Project Settings.  Do you see any backslashes in those LUT names? Of course not.  The only name you see is the one that has the underscores and the periods. These LUTS work as designed without having to change any path names.  However, they need to be set up properly set up through CSTs and by what is supported in Davinci Resolve.  Hence, the FLog2C LUTS cannot be used because Davinci Resolve does not support Fuji Gamut color space and the FLog2C gamut. Alternatively, Davinci Resolve does support Flog2 because the color space for FLog2 is Rec 2020 and there is an FLog2 gamut. If all you are doing is changing the path names then most likely you are not getting the correct results.
    • I found the reddit topic i refere to :  https://www.reddit.com/r/davinciresolve/comments/1pc3f1e/cant_apply_new_fujifilm_gfx_55_lut/ "Update for y'all, It's just like what @ExpBalSat said, it's because of the backslashes in the names break them. I changed the file name and it works now. "   For me it was the solution. Realy annoying if it doesn’t work for you 😕  
    • Here is the solution to using the Eterna 55 file simulation LUTs in Davinci Resolve.   In general, do not use the FLog2C to film simulation LUTs as they are not supported by Davinci Resolve for two reasons: 1) Davinci Resolve does not support Fuji Gamut Color Space and 2) Davinci Resolve does not support FLog2C gamma.  Instead, use Flog2 which is supported by Davinci Resolve.  Here is an example.  Let's say that you want to use Classic Chrome simulation.  Do the following: Complete your color grade and use a CST to get to Rec 709. Add a node.  Use a CST to convert from Rec 709 to FLog2.  Output Color space is Rec 2020 and Outout Gamut is FLog2. Add a node.  Apply the FLog2 to Classic Chrome LUT Create a combination node from node in steps 2 and 3. Apply a Key to the combination node and adjust the Key Output Gain to get the amount of the combination node that you want applied. So that you do not have to do this over and over again, generate a LUT for the combination node.  Remember to turn off all other nodes before generating the LUT. Hope this helps others. Don  
    • Thanks for the insights. I think it's really hard to make a decision without having the two side by side! 
    • I don’t have the 23 f2 but I have read several times that it is considered a little soft at close distance, compared to the 23 f1.4 lenses. These will also focus at shorter distance from the subject, esp. the new one. So that might make a difference. The new 23 f1.4 LM WR  has better resolution, esp. in regard to the 40Mpix sensors, which you don’t have on the X-T2. What practical difference that makes for the value of the pictures one makes is disputable and subjective.  f1.4 will gather more light but with a smaller DOF, which may be desirable in some situations but not so in others, depends. If you like to shoot close ups, you will probably use higher f numbers to get a bigger DOF. Same for landscapes. If you are a bokeh fan, yes the f1.4 lens are better.  The older 23 f1.4 lens that you are considering is a very good and respected lens. The f1.4 vs f2 aperture per se is perhaps not so important. The 23 f2 is very small, light and practical and a great lens for travel and landscapes. So, go figure. I am afraid I just sent you further down the road to insanity !
×
×
  • Create New...