Jump to content

Ken Rockwell X-T2 Review... X-T2 not really for Pro's

Patrick FR

By Patrick FR
in Fuji X-T2 / Fuji X-T20

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Snodge
Snodge

Ken Rockwell... the Donald Trump of the photography world...

JpP
JpP

You're blaspheming  !!!  Shame on you !!! Don't you know (surely you do know) that ...   ... Ken Rockwell is the Chuck Norris of photography Ken Rockwell's camera has similar settings to ours, exce

jmfitamant
jmfitamant

Ken Rockwell is the Chuck Norris of photography Ken Rockwell's camera has similar settings to ours, except his are: P[erfect] Av[Awesome Priority Tv[Totally Awesome Priority] M[ajestic] Ken Rockwell

synthesaur Rookie

synthesaur

Posted
Posted

High ISO jpegs are still much better from my old Canon 6D. Fuji's low light jpg's look like cheap camera shots, noisy and all smeared.
The new XP2 and XT2 have a several year old Sony sensor...
They should have gone a FF way from the start.. A full frame sensor at 16mp would have been a monster killer..
So, yes if you want efficient camera to do (typical) weddings etc, Fuji may not be considered a pro camera.
For casual and street shooting it is great. I've had x100s, xt1, xp2 and now xt2... 
After having shot with the xt2 I realize that i overpaid for it, the camera is not much better than its predecessor...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Aswald Mentor

Aswald

Posted
Posted

Let's see......here's what Ken says.

 

AF too slow and clunky

Color not good for landscape but good for people

Bad ISO dial design

Bad Menu system

Too big especially with the EF-X500 flash

Better to use dslr like D3300 or SL1 for pro work than the X-T2

 

Hmmmmm......any Pros here. What are your thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites
darknj Experienced

darknj

Posted
Posted

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

 

Still, the X-T2 is a good camera, I just really don't like the fact that you need the extra battery grip to unlock the full potential of the camera, while on the other hand Olympus just released a new camera that is so impressive that makes every single other one from their company look like flying pieces of turds.

 

The X-T2 essentially feels like a slightly upgraded X-T1, I feel no need to buy it, it doesn't change much of from the X-T1 to value the extra money in it. Plus, the X-T1 still remain an excellent camera, it has a few weaknesses in faster moving subjects but ISO stuck at 6400 but that aside, it really is an enjoyable camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites
santtu Rookie

santtu

Posted
Posted

Ken Rockwell uses Nikon D3300 and his recommended settings is JPEG BASIC and image size SMALL (6Mpix) because "The default of JPEG Normal wastes twice as much space in your computer" and "Since the pictures look the same at BASIC, I use it so more pictures fit on my card, and more importantly, I don't clog up my computer and everything transfers, copies and sends twice as fast." and "I'm serious: even at the Small setting you've got 6 very sharp megapixels, which is more than enough to print at any size if your photo is in focus in the first place."

 

He also said "The NORMAL, FINE and NEF RAW modes are for people who don't mind fitting only 12 images on a card. The pictures really do look the same; try it and see if you're curious. I did, which is why I shoot JPG BASIC."

 

So, it is the same that I will say that my doctor is not "pro", I can choose my medicine myself!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gareth_E Contributor

Gareth_E

Posted
Posted

Ken Rockwell uses Nikon D3300 and his recommended settings is JPEG BASIC and image size SMALL (6Mpix) because "The default of JPEG Normal wastes twice as much space in your computer" and "Since the pictures look the same at BASIC, I use it so more pictures fit on my card, and more importantly, I don't clog up my computer and everything transfers, copies and sends twice as fast." and "I'm serious: even at the Small setting you've got 6 very sharp megapixels, which is more than enough to print at any size if your photo is in focus in the first place."

 

He also said "The NORMAL, FINE and NEF RAW modes are for people who don't mind fitting only 12 images on a card. The pictures really do look the same; try it and see if you're curious. I did, which is why I shoot JPG BASIC."

 

So, it is the same that I will say that my doctor is not "pro", I can choose my medicine myself!

 

Despite his self promoting 'pro' advice, reading his reviews and articles smacks of nothing more than an enthusiastic amateur trying desperately to come across as more... but then with alarming regularity he will state an opinion as fact, that flies in the face of reason, or real working practices. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Puma Cat Enthusiast

Puma Cat

Posted
Posted

Still, the X-T2 is a good camera, I just really don't like the fact that you need the extra battery grip to unlock the full potential of the camera, while on the other hand Olympus just released a new camera that is so impressive that makes every single other one from their company look like flying pieces of turds.

 

The X-T2 essentially feels like a slightly upgraded X-T1, I feel no need to buy it, it doesn't change much of from the X-T1 to value the extra money in it. Plus, the X-T1 still remain an excellent camera, it has a few weaknesses in faster moving subjects but ISO stuck at 6400 but that aside, it really is an enjoyable camera.

 

In my experience the X-T2 is much more than a slightly upgraded X-T1. I don't know if you've shot with one in a professional context, but I shot my last pro motorsports race entirely with an X-T2 last month, something I could not have done with my X-T1. Whether that meets your requirements for the significance of an upgrade, that's up to you to determine, horses for courses, as they say. All I can say is my pro Canon gear is going up for sale...

Link to post
Share on other sites
johant Mentor

johant

Posted
Posted

The AF is not slightly faster, it's signficantly faster....particularly particulary AF target acquisition and tracking.

Maybe, but for someone who could live with the X-E1 auto-focus, and is happy with the X-T1 ergonomics, the X-T2 is basically a waste of money.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Grant Explorer

Scott Grant

Posted
Posted (edited)

His tune will change when there is sufficient stock of the camera.   Until then he will harp that another camera (that is well stocked) is the best choice and everyone should buy it through his links to reputable dealers, from which he will get a small percentage.

Edited by Scott Grant
Link to post
Share on other sites
johant Mentor

johant

Posted
Posted

Yeah! As all our bloody hobbies are... :D

Uhmm nope ... my most used clarinet is from 1972, and plays like a dream. My favourite sax is also from the seventies, and cost considerably less than a Fujifilm X-T2.

 

Newer may be better, but is it better for you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
dalto Contributor

dalto

Posted
Posted

Maybe, but for someone who could live with the X-E1 auto-focus, and is happy with the X-T1 ergonomics, the X-T2 is basically a waste of money.

 

Isn't that true of basically every upgrade of any product?  If the new features aren't interesting to you than upgrading is a waste of money.

 

I would hope that people who are upgrading are doing so because the new features *are* something worth buying to them.

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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • thelostkiwi
      Looking for Full Frame lenses to adapt to GFX

      By thelostkiwi · Posted

      I also use a Nikon to GFX Fringer and it works very well.  24mm f/1.8 vignettes so best used on 35mm mode.  50mm f/1.8 covers the entire frame very well with no issues and is a superb little lens. 105mm Sigma vignettes slightly but is perfectly usable. 300 f/4 likewise the 105.  I have a 70-200 f/20+.8 incoming to test so will report back but I'm expecting a little vignetting.  Even in 35mm mode the image is still 60MP and if you're prepared to manually crop and correct you can get 80-90 MP images.  I also have a C/Y to GFX adapter.  The 24mm Sigma Superwide vignettes strongly. Ditto 28-80 Zeiss Sonnar. 80-200 f/4 Sonnar is perfectly usable. All work fine as 35mm mode lenses.  I also have an M42 adapter which I tried with the Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f/3.5 with good results. 
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Thank you. I will research it.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Ahh, the infamous brick wall photos… 😀 According to internet lore, if the dng converter does not properly apply the corrections, you can have it apply custom profiles that should work for you. How to do that is waaaaaay outside of this comment’s scope, but there are plenty of sites listed in the search engines that step you through the processes. Best wishes.
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Jerry Thank you very much. That is extremely helpful. It seems that the camera and the lens have the latest firmware update, so it appears that the corrections should be applied automatically. The lens arrived this afternoon and I took some quick test shots, in which the correct lens information appeared in the EXIF files, so that sounds good. I used Adobe DNG converter to convert the Raw (RAF) files, and then opened the DNG files and saved them in PSD format. However, with a beautiful, clear, cloudless blue sky, there were no lines near the edges to check if distortion had been corrected. Another day I plan to photograph a brick wall. Thank you for your help.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Typically you need to make sure the lens is compatible with the camera, i.e. check the lens compatibility charts for your camera, then make sure the respective firmwares are updated so older issues are resolved. After that, each lens has a manufacturer’s profile which will be embedded into the raw file meta data for the images captured using that lens. From there, it is up to the raw conversion software to apply the lens correction to the image. Different converters do that differently, some automatically, some only if a setting is turned on. For in-camera jpegs, the on-board converter does the corrections automatically, assuming the camera recognizes the lens, it applies a generic profile otherwise. I do not know if that can be turned off or not.
×
×
  • Create New...