"16MP is absolutely enough and everything beyond that is

There is obviously never anything wrong with resolution increase so long as it's engineered to the other properties aren't being compromised.

It's just bullshit whining.

File: C00001827.jpg (2MB, 4000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4000x3000px

>>2744877
The difference between my two K5's (16MPix) and my K3 (24MPix) is negligible in practical use.
To begin with I though it would be noticeable, but it really isn't.
By comparison my Q7 (12MPix) is a noticeably smaller image. A difference that really is noticeable. That said the Q7's sensor isn't as good, and the only time I notice the diff between 16 and 24 is when doing serious crops .. like smaller than 50% of the original image...so rarely.
But I imagine if I was going for an end product that was even remotely large, like A4+ prints or something, then it would be more of a gripe.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX Q7
Camera Software	darktable 1.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	39 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2016:01:15 18:21:24
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/1.9
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	250
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	8.50 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4000
Image Height	3000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Macro

>>2744877
>sincerely, a canonfag
you got a monitor that is capable of showing these at 100% without having to zoom in?
do you print at sizes at which a resolution of more than 16mp is necessary?
both answered with no? - you're a pixelpeeper more interested in gear than in taking photos.

>>2744886
He doesn't necessary have to zoom in or crop. He can just super sample the resolution downwards as needed.
At the en of the day it's the superior image quality that matters. If the 16Mp sensor is never generation than the 24 and produce better image, then so be it, but if the 24 Mp is the never sensor with all the advancements, then give it the credit is deserves.

>>2744891
>At the en of the day it's the superior image quality that matters

GEARFAG ALERT
GEARFAG ALERT
EVERYONE EVACUATE

uh, the xpro2 is 24mp doofoid

>>2744877
>not even latest bsi sensor
>getting cucked by sony
>should have went for the corean now they're bankrupt.

>>2744902
You'll find out it's probably really fucking hard to even create BSI sensors. I wouldn't expect even Canon to have that technology within this decade, let alone a small player like Fuji.

>>2744891
so you give credit to some hammer because it was well made instead of it being useful to get a nail in the wall?

>>2744909
What I'm saying is you should call the better hammer for what it is, instead of pretending it has no merits.

>>2744911
>you should call the better hammer for what it is
a hammer?
I understand what you mean, but my personal opinion is that a camera is just a tool, hence the hammer reference.
Usually I don't pixelpeep and take photos for either showing them on a monitor or (preferred:) printing. For these purposes 16mp are more than enough.

File: Masketta.jpg (28KB, 318x298px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 318x298px

>>2744877
>I'll take that meme where gearfags make fun of apple claiming anything above 4 inches of screen on phone is useless and unnecessary and just insert Fuji and megapickles instead.
OP youre such a fucking faggot holy shit. Fucking gearfag.

>>2744915
>photos for either showing them on a monitor
All the more reason for you to appreciate the supersampling capability.

What happens the day the Xpro2 with better sensor gets to the same price as Xpro1? You might regret having pushing the notion that there is no improvement to the newer sensor.

>>2744924
you mean the day 4K is obsolete? I'm still going to enjoy my 8x12 prints.

File: IMG_3061.jpg (672KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

672KB, 1600x1200px

>>2744877

>needing more than 2MP

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon PowerShot A60
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Lens Size	5.41 - 16.22 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 2.00
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	180 dpi
Vertical Resolution	180 dpi
Image Created	2015:11:21 11:28:28
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	5.41 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1600
Image Height	1200
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
ISO Speed Rating	50
Sharpness	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	Single
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
Subject Distance	0.420 m
White Balance	Fluorescent
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	128
Image Number	130-3061

File: Rene-Burris-photograph-of-001.jpg (21KB, 460x276px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 460x276px

More gear faggotry by pixelpeepers that will never use a camera to take a decent photograph in their life.

You are not a photographer if all you do is stare at 100% crops of test shots of cats fucktards. You may as well sell your gear and fuck off to reddit and argue about PC vs consoles all day like the gear fags you are.

>>2744983
Super sampling images is the opposite of pixel peeping.
When you know you only need a certain resolution, it's good to have highest possible quality, then down sample from there.

>>2744877
I'm way more excited about the AF improvements and weather sealing than I am a minor increase in resolution, but considering that it's competing against other APS-C cameras with 24mp sensors, I understand why they went with the increase.

>>2744877
It has everything I ever wanted on my xpro1 and a bit more. The increased megapickles on the pro2 is pretty much the least exciting feature. I placed my order as soon as it became available earlier today at my local photo shop.

This will be my fourth and probably final Fuji camera unless they go medium format.

File: BzNRqCECQAA66gt.jpg (57KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1024x1024px

>>2744988

Not interested. Too busy blocking out the gearfags.

>>2744877
>"16MP is absolutely enough and everything beyond that is useless and stupid" - fujifags
Fuji people haven't really said this. They in stead, have said "16mp is enough for what I'm doing, so I don't really mind that it's not 24"

I'm sure there are a few exceptions, but most people don't actually think this way (other than Canon shooters of course)

I've got my pre-order in. the 24mp bump will be nice I guess, but I'm more excited for the faster x-sync speed, 1/8000 mechanical shutter, weather sealing, EVF, AF improvements. I'd still be perfectly happy buying it at 16mp.

Fuck want it so bad. Someone buy my X-T1.

>>2745026
A lot of people did say this though, from a variety of camps. I remember a fair share of these comments when the Nikon not only released the D800, but then proceeded to start making all their entry level (3xxx, 5xxx, 7xxx) cameras have 24 MP instead of 16 or 18. The arguments usually involved points like
>16 is more than enough, you shouldn't have to crop anyways and if you do, you're a lousy photographer
>36 MP is so much that most computers can't even handle it

The first point was some appeal to being a "pro", or being a really good photographer who got special achievements and awards because he doesn't crop. Pretty silly looking back on it, since I used to care a lot about that too.

The second point was almost legit but was proved patently false. I saw little to no difference in processing time in Camera Raw, Lightroom or Photoshop going from a 16 MP D5100 to a 36 MP D7000.


Oh and let's not forget an acquaintance of mine, who was trying to sell me his D3000 while I was looking for my first D-SLR. He had pushed particularly hard for the "megapixels don't matter" argument.

>>2745063
>36 MP D7000
Heh, I meant to say 36 MP D810*

>>2745048
keep it you thirsty fuccboi

>>2745063
>I spend time with idiots and trolls, and can't understand the concept of a small vocal sample of people. I'm also angry about the megapixel count of a camera I probably won't ever see in my life
What are you even doing dude? Are you actually upset about this? Are you stupid enough to think that every Fuji user thinks this way? Look through this very thread to see multiple people speaking rationally, for instance.

>>2744877
The increase in resolution doesn't help much if the lens(es) is(are) crap. It would depend on how big you want to blow up a particular shot.

>>2745080
Fuji doesn't really have any crap lenses. The kit lens is L Glass quality, and even the lower end of the budget has fantastic image quality. But just like any flagship camera from any manufacturer, if you're going to buy the best camera, you should be using it with the best lenses, you're right.

>>2745074
b-b-but i like my strawman.... :^(

>>2745080
>Fuji
>crap lenses
pick one

>>2745080
>lens(es) is(are) crap

>fuji
>crap lenses

And that's all for tonight.

Have a pleasant evening folks.

Fuji does make quality glass, what sucks is their sensors and how overpriced their bodies are. Pretty much the canon of mirrorless, with in built vsco

>>2745159
>what sucks is their sensors
uh, do you even? they're the same sensor found in sony APS-C, but better because no AA, x-trans, and better implementation (like Nikon vs Sony)

>>2745165
Don't give in to the obvious trolls.

>>2745080
>lens(es) is(are) crap
kek
a7 fag here: if sony could make glass as good and consistent as fujinon then i'd be a happy chappy

>>2744905
what are you talking about?
fuji uses sony sensors.
and them not getting the bsi that will go on a6100 shows how cucked they are.

>>2745195
what?
28mm, 55mm and 90mm is great.

>>2745234
f/?

>>2745234
What about zooms? 56 f/1.2, 16-55 f/2.8 and 50-140 are untouched by Sony.

>>2745234
i sent 2 55's back due to build issues and decentering

no more funny shit plz sony
maybe just my bad luck

or maybe because sony "zeiss" is made in thailand

perhaps I should just spring for a biogon
(or just go back to my fuji which never let me down)

spoiled for choice!

any more than 16 megapixels for a crop sensor is definitely overkill.

I'll take less noise over more pixels, past that.

>>2745294
based on what? Source?

>>2745296
based on my own personal preference for less noise over more pixels?

Or did you want a breakdown of the principles of optics?

>>2745232
Sony does not fucking have a BSI APS-C sensor. It's impossible to buy from them, it doesn't exist.

>>2745305
>>2745294
When sensor technology advance fast enough, sometimes you see higher resolution with less noise at the same time.

>>2745235
Aperture number isn't indication of a lens' quality.

>>2745309
It is indicative of capability

>>2745309
>>2745311
I've been wondering for a while, what's stopping lens manufacturers from just putting a f/1 aperture in a lens for shits and giggles? Even if it will look bad you can still use it for maximum bokey and if you want proper quality put it on f/2.8 or whatever it was designed for.
I'm probably missing something fundamental though.

>>2745323
Expense, size, weight.

>>2745323

There are several f/1 or faster lenses currently in production.

>>2745311
Even then you're still hidden from data about T-stop. And the quality of the bokeh, etc.

F1,4 whores are worse than Gear whores.

>>2745025
>Too busy blocking out the gearfags.

so, too busy for not photographing but shitposting?

I love it. Just got an X-T10 though so I'm not going to buy a new body any time soon. But whenever the X-T2 comes out I'll be looking hard at the used market... I way prefer the rangefinder styling and feel too.

>>2745074
That's not what I said at all but good job putting words in my mouth.

Not all Fuji shooters think like this. Some do, along with owners of other lower resolution bodies. I've seen D4 shooters make the same claim (that 16 MP is more than enough and high resolution bodies are for "amateurs")

>>2745323
That much extra optical glass costs a lot of money so even if you don't bother to make it a good lens it's still going to cost a lot. Also a lens which is "supposed" to be f/2.8 but is actually f/1 for shits and giggles means 3 times the glass area means theoretically like 5 times the volume. So you're using 5 times as much expensive glass and making it 5 times heavier. And there are also design limitations because the lens has to fit in the lens mount which means there's a fixed maximum size for at least the rear element.

>>2745549
Actually I fucked up, I guess 3 stops would be 9 times the area and so 27 times the volume. But that's probably way too simplified and not accurate at all anyway, lens design is complicated magic.

>>2745331
That's right.
Fuji's got that 33mm f/1.0 in the pipeline it seems.

what's with the retarded focal lengths in the sony/zeiss lineup?
55 not 50 - sony-zeiss
25 not 24, not 28 - zeiss batis
21 not 20, not 24 - zeiss loxia

>>2745294
sony 24megapickle on the a6000 have better high iso than the old 16megapickle.
now what?

>>2748432
>have a6000
>no 35mm equivalent that is not $1000

>>2748432
because zeiss is a meme

>>2748448
yeah i just...don't understand. camera system from scratch. 35, 50, 28/24, 85, 24-70, 70-200 profit.

>>2748456
i thought zeiss was supposed to be some optics god

>>2748459
Fucking underrated post. Made my day.

>>2748432
>55
It's an portrait standard.
>25
There's no explaining this, it should be 24.
>21
21mm is a popular focal length. It's more niche than 24 but there's nothing wrong with it.

>>2748494
someone at zeiss hates even numbers.

Sitting from a place where 16MP has been eliminated from my bag, I can say that processing and editing the stupidly large A7r images is just easier, more flexible and worry free compared to the prior gen Canon and Sony crop images I worked with.

It isn't about 100% zoom, but having more choices and more scenarios where I can push a capture a bit and know I have a clean, usable shot.

In nice light, shooting landscapes or environmental stuff, a cellphone is usually sufficient.

It is when the shit goes down that all the gizmos, do-dads and pixels can help out.

That isn't gearfagging, it is just practical.

>>2748432
because they're more honest about their exact focal lengths than others? same reason Pentax has odd numbers. measure any Canon 50mm lens and you'll find it anywhere from 45.5mm to 55.7mm. they're not precise, especially when you consider that the focal length changes even just focusing the damn thing.

>>2748704

You're getting memed, son. The reason they use odd numbers is because it's intriguing and looks more "pro".

>>2744947
looks like shit

File: 1448130690685.jpg (78KB, 340x314px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 340x314px

holy shit poorfags are incredibly salty about not being able to afford technology from post 1983

my main camera is a 2004 6.1 megapixel D70 come at me
aesthetics famiglia

>>2750356
intriguing

got anything that you believe encapsulates the aesthetic that you enjoy from this camera?

>>2750360
on mobile so I don't have nothing at hand right now
but I stick with it because of the the limitations esp. because I need to use them as an accessory
sensor noise is pretty delicious with the light anti-alias filter
generally speaking I wouldn't recommend it, but it works for me since my prints are black and white 8" by 10"
also 6 MB RAW images

>>2750376
if you ever need some more megapixels for a print or whatever, check our alien skin's blow up

File: muhzeiss.jpg (2MB, 1781x1336px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1781x1336px

>>2748448
I know that feel.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Motorola
Camera Model	XT1563
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5344
Image Height	4008
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:10:31 11:57:42
Exposure Time	3333/100000 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	64
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Brightness	Unknown
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.67 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1781
Image Height	1336
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio	1.2
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Soft
Geodetic Survey Data	WGS-84

>>2750387
wow. that camera phone is nice.

>>2750371
What does the 56 look like at f/1.8?

File: image.gif (359KB, 640x636px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 640x636px

>>2744877
Hi, OP of the military thread here.
I've blown up two of the photos in that thread into 20" x 30" prints at 162 dpi

At inspection of the prints I saw no signs of digitalization or loss of IQ. They were perfect.

OP is a fag

btw, Fuji's new cameras will have 23+ megapixels starting this year with the CMOS3 Sensor. So what the fuck is the point of this thread?

>>2750371
doesn't matter really, the 56mm @1.2 is giving you the same light of the 85mm @1.8 soo the measurements are correct

if you'd put the 56 @1.8 you'd have to put the 85 @2.8

>>2750447
it's just a sony 24 megapickle sensor with a tranny filter.

>>2750581
>doesn't matter really
If you're comparing light levels, or depth of field, it doesn't matter. If you're comparing sharpness and fine detail, it absolutely matters.

>>2750447
>btw, Fuji's new cameras will have 23+ megapixels starting this year with the CMOS3 Sensor. So what the fuck is the point of this thread?
The point was to show that a small amount of fuji owners who were happy with 16mp should feel bad that a company is releasing something new.

>>2750715
do you compare a MF 120 F2.8 with a FF 85mm F2.8? the full frame will most likely be sharper

it's as hard to make the 56mm 1.2 as the 85mm 1.8

>>2750371
http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-2025/objectif-fujifilm-fujinon-xf-56mm-f12-r-flash-test-8.html

http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-2816/objectif-zeiss-batis-85-mm-f-18-flash-test-8.html

for further investigation

>>2750726
>do you compare a MF 120 F2.8 with a FF 85mm F2.8?
Yes.

>>2750721
>The point was to show that a small amount of fuji owners who were happy with 16mp should feel bad that a company is releasing something new.
I know that this is /p/ and everyone's fucking retarded.
But what?

>>2750758
Yeah, it's a pretty lame troll.

Fuji lenses are absolutely amazing. What has been holding them back, at a pixel peeper level, are the 16 megapickles. The new sensor in the Xpro2 takes even more advantage of the resolving power of the lenses.

I just wish they'd throw out smaller, full manual focus, lenses.

File: 2015-05-18 16_12_49-Lightroom.jpg (338KB, 1994x1343px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 1994x1343px

>>2750777
>What has been holding them back, at a pixel peeper level, are the 16 megapickles
More likely the issue is that people don't know how to process those 16mp files.

>pic related
Anon posts this fairly regularly to show detail available from them.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Greenshot
Image-Specific Properties:

>>2750789
Don't get me wrong, I love Fuji. I'm an ex Canon and Nikon user who went fuji a few years back.
But you can't argue they haven't had issues with the "watercolor" look. That's all gone with the new sensor and processor in the Xpro2.

>>2750872
That watercolor look is adobe related tho

>>2750872
>But you can't argue they haven't had issues with the "watercolor" look.
They have had issues with it when using Adobe, and with SOOC jpegs, but processed in Capture1, PhotoNinja, Iridient, etc. The problem goes away. The issue is the noise reduction that JPEGs and Adobe don't know how to strip out.

I hadn't read anything about the waxiness on the XPro2. It's resolved you say? That's great news.
Fuji also claims that they've been working with Adobe to dramatically improve what ACR is capable of doing with the files.

>>2750874
I've had adobe do some weird shit color wise while processing RAW files from my 6D, like magnify CA effect on edges x100 like I applied some weird glow filter. Resetting to raw defaults fixes it, it's pretty random when it happens.

>>2750371
>>2750736
If you look at the wine bottle (the one you helpfully cropped out of your image) you'll see that the fuji is obviously focused slightly ahead of the sony.
>muh apples
>muh oranges

>>2750992
>fuji has shit AF
>fuji better than Sony
holy shit you fujifags are delusional

>>2750777
>want to manual focus to infinity with fujinon lens
>focus ring continues to spin instead of stopping at infinity

My only gripe with X series

>>2750697
>just a

File: 20140523-01-LearnPhoto.jpg (47KB, 376x600px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 376x600px

Are you gearfags still at it?

>>2751025
are you poorfags still salty?

Fuck's sake, I just got an x-t10

>>2744877
XTrans is the GOAT APS-C.

>inb4 foveonfags

File: DP1M0970.jpg (256KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1200x800px

>>2751117
Did someone say Foveon?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SIGMA
Camera Model	SIGMA DP1 Merrill
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.6
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Focal Length Range	19
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	180 dpi
Vertical Resolution	180 dpi
Image Created	2015:07:22 11:17:15
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	19.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	800
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	3030333132323837D3AD935531433638
Resolution	HI
Autofocus Mode	MF
Focus Setting	MF
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Mode	A
Metering Mode	A
Exposure	1/5
Contrast	1
Shadow	-1.0
Highlight	-0.8
Saturation	1.1
Sharpness	2.0
Fill Light	1.0
Color Adjustment	Infinite

>>2750996
>>2750992
>you'll see that the fuji is obviously focused slightly ahead of the sony.
>the sony

batis have nothing to do with sony
it's a fucking zeiss
not a sony/"zeiss"
but zeiss zeiss

so japan made rather than thailand, like the sony "zeiss"
i've noticed fuji lenses to better than the sony offerings
but not necessarily better than the zeisszeiss

>>2751117
>>2751195
best case scenario is that fuji continue to work on that organic sensor with panalsonic, but in the meantime obtain and develop the foveon with sigma

i can already imagine a relatively compact "MF" type rangefinder with a larger foveon sensor, like what fuji used to make in the film days

it would be glorious

>>2751206
Fujifilm GSW690-D when

>>2751208
hopefully soon, actually
the MF stirrings are stirring at fujifilm hq

>>2751117
Until you open up lightroom.

>>2751221
My ferrari is amazing until you try to take it off-road. My phone works great until you put it in the water. Don't make dumb decisions with your tools and they'll continue to impress you.

>>2751222
>don't open pictures in lightroom

literally what

>>2751223
This meme is fucking stale as fuck.

Fuji raws don't work well in lightroom, they don't reach their optimal potential.

You have to use one of the other raw devs to get the most out of xtrans.

Fuck everyone knows this already I don't even use fuji and I know this ffs.

>>2751229
>use photoninja as recommended by that isi shill
>slow as fuck
>lightroom is slow loading fuji raws too.

>>2751229
Whats good to open them with

>>2751229
they fixed it.

Was Fujifilm big back in the days?

Like Kodak big?

>>2751240
Not entirely, but it is pretty close now.

Close enough that the average snapshit resized is fine.

File: 3164659805_ffff282b3d.jpg (60KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 500x333px

>>2751267
fuji has always made real cameras, not toy shit like brownies

>>2751267
you never used fujifilm films?

File: sample_ff554090f24528368154bed66c899bb7.jpg (283KB, 850x609px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 850x609px

>create bait thread for gearfags
>get 120 replies of gearfags gearfagging

/p/ is such a nice place

>>2751237
Capture one is the most robust alternative that still gives good results. The best I've used is PhotoNinja, but the interface is fairly horrible.

>>2751240
No, they didn't. They improved it slightly. Fuji has come out and said they've been in talks with Adobe and given them a lot of information about X-Trans and that soon, around XPro2 time, they should have some updates and true improvements supposedly.

>>2751223
What are you confused by?

>>2751240
Fuji user
not even close. the difference between camera raw and capture one is night and day

File: _DSF4479.jpg (519KB, 1750x1167px) Image search: [Google]

519KB, 1750x1167px

>>2751396
How about photos in stead?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	150 dpi
Vertical Resolution	150 dpi

File: _DSF4723.jpg (1MB, 1750x1167px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1750x1167px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	150 dpi
Vertical Resolution	150 dpi

File: _DSF4175-Edit.jpg (383KB, 833x1250px) Image search: [Google]

383KB, 833x1250px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

File: _DSF4169-Edit.jpg (188KB, 1250x833px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1250x833px

>>2751432
Love my X-T1. Very excited for the XPro2. Got my preorder in.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

File: _DSF1795.jpg (1MB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1500x1000px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

File: _DSF8311.jpg (1MB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1500x1000px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

File: _DSF5419-2.jpg (965KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

965KB, 1000x1500px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

>>2750388
It's alright in decent light, but then again, many of them are.

>>2751229
It's not just Fuji though. To my knowledge there are objectively superior RAW processors that'll get more out of any RAW file, not just Fuji. I haven't opened LR in ages, and am considering getting something like Capture One or DxO Optics Pro to compliment PS because the RAW processing on those is supposed to be noticeably better with sharper images, better colors and better contrast.

File: 2015-05-11 12_31_37-Lightroom.jpg (274KB, 2008x1164px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 2008x1164px

>>2751480
It is usually true, yes, but in the case of Fuji, it can be quite dramatic.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Greenshot
Image-Specific Properties:

>>2751482
what was used here?

>>2751524
Photoninja on the left, Lightroom 5 on the left. 6.1 is better, but still nowhere close to PhotoNinja.

>>2751482
Holy shit night and fucking day.

Have you ever tried Iridient Dev?

>>2751482
Wow, that's a huge difference. I'm still learning the ropes with Lightroom 6.1, but I'll definitely keep Photo Ninja in mind once I've learned/gotten the hang of LR.

File: 2016-01-23 15_50_57-Photos.jpg (115KB, 826x1239px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 826x1239px

>>2751555
I have tried iridient. I didn't see too much improvement, though it was there if you get in to 100%. I've used Lightroom 5, Lightroom 6.1, Iridient, Capture One, and PhotoNinja, and nothing touches PhotoNinja for the RAF files I have.
The other engines are "Oh, okay, yeah, that's a little better" and with PhotoNinja, it gets you checking the stats for the X-T1 to be sure it really says it's only 16mp.

Screen shot of the full image is
>Pic related

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Greenshot
Image-Specific Properties:

>>2751482
Has anyone ever used RAWTherapee?
How is it in comparison to Photoninja?

File: 2016-01-23 15_59_35-Photos.jpg (149KB, 1746x1191px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1746x1191px

>>2751482
here's the same file in Lightroom 6.1.
All noise reduction turned off, highlights pulled back all the way, attempting to get the same tones as PhotoNinja. It can't get there. It's definitely an improvement over Lightroom 5, undeniable, but still not anywhere near as nice as PhotoNinja with minimal adjustment.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Greenshot
Image-Specific Properties:

>>2751568
fuark

>>2751482
How's this even possible to be that blurry, pixels are pixels right?

>>2751563
Do you think you'll pick up an xpro2 or the xt2? Or are you content and functional as is?

>>2751574
Fuji files have "baked in" noise reduction, and a unique color filter. In order to not see each individual colored photo site, the program has to blend together the individual photo sites to decide what color was actually present using averaging and some proprietary algorithms. The combination of that noise reduction, and Adobe not knowing the perfect math to do that photo-site de-mosaicing leads to guess work and sloppy results. You get smears and glowing edges and "waxy details".

Why PhotoNinja, a tiny little program nobody has ever used, can do it great, while Adobe, the biggest name in the business, can't, I have absolutely no idea whatsoever. But one would think it would be pretty high on Fuji's priority list to get an email over to Adobe with an attachment called "How to work our files.txt" or some shit.

>>2751579
>Why PhotoNinja, a tiny little program nobody has ever used
Or iridient, which is really a one man show.

>while Adobe, the biggest name in the business, can't
Of course they can.
They just don't want to.
Not enough market share from fuji users?
Paid off by a fuji competitor?
Just fucking lazy an incompetent?

>>2751585
Hanlon's razor my friend.

File: _DSF1444.jpg (316KB, 500x750px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 500x750px

>>2751578
I have the X-Pro2 on pre-order. It has nothing to do with the resolution though. Only care about the rangefinder setup and the AF performance. I'm sure the extra resolution will be nice, but 16 has treated me very very well thus far. I really wanted the XPro1, but with the "fuji's first steps" pains, it wasn't the right camera for me. I'll be keeping the X-T1 for when I need battery life or a portrait grip, or the giant viewfinder, but I think most of my stuff will be done with the XPro2 since that body style suits my shooting style very well.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

I want to jump ship to Fuji, I currently have a 550D and was going to get the 5D mark 3, but that was almost primarily for full frame.. however I like the colours and feel of the X-T1's images.
A little concerned about going from APS-C to APS-C but I suppose with a 24mm lens or something it'll balance out as I mainly shoot a 50mm (84mm equivalent) already.
Any reason why I shouldn't do this?

>>2751625
you can't shoot video on a fuji.
the xf glass is more expensive, with limited choices.

thats about it.

>>2751633
I don't shoot video, not even a little bit
I only use a 50mm with my 550D and it does me fine, I'm happy with 1-2 prime lenses max so an investment isn't an issue either

File: _DSF5555.jpg (878KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

878KB, 1500x1000px

>>2751625
I'm the guy posting photos in here. I had a 5Dmk2, and got a X-T1 as a fun travel camera. After about a month, my 5D sat in my bag, and all I ever carried around was the X-T1. As of about a week ago, I sold the 5D, and all my canon lenses, and I'm using the cash to fund the XPro2 and a couple of studio lights.

I'm not you, and you're not me, but if you like any of the photos I've posted, and can identify with that style of shooting, you can feel confident knowing that the Fuji was a large step up, even from Canon full frame (though admittedly, not CURRENT Canon full frame)

the step from Canon aps-c to Fuji (Sony) aps-c is dramatic, and you'll love the improvement, I guarantee it. The only thing to look into is whether you're comfortable with the ergonomics of the bodies. The grip on my X-T1 felt small to me, so I got the large battery grip for it, which helped a lot, but it's a different shooting experience.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

>>2751635
>>2751625
I would not buy the Fuji without trying the 5D first.
I guarantee you will love everything about it except the weight and the unnecessarily complicated control scheme (compared to the 550D, anyway).
Contrast detect AF is always going to be contrast detect AF. 16MP is always going to be 16MP. "Fuji colours" are just image processing.
5D is the professional's choice for a reason.

File: _DSF2529.jpg (795KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

795KB, 1500x1000px

>>2751646
X-T1 has phase detect autofocus. it is slower than a DSLR, slightly, but much more accurate, and reliable. Another reason I stopped using the 5D.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

File: _DSF4796.jpg (838KB, 1750x1167px) Image search: [Google]

838KB, 1750x1167px

>>2751650
*Clarification, it is much more accurate than my 5D was. I know the more modern AF systems are better, so it might be less of an issue. The 5Dmk2 was notorious for having a "good enough" system, without much to brag about. Either way, I have found the X-T1 to be enough to shoot a "jump around on stage" style show in good light, but NOT good enough to shoot the same style show in difficult lighting. For day to day shooting, portraits, "street" etc, it's excellent. Still hoping that the dramatically faster processor and new sensor on the XPro2 will improve upon it however.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	200 dpi
Vertical Resolution	200 dpi

>>2751645
>>2751650
>>2751672
Are you the trip with the old-ass wife who posted all those hasselblad snaps from the bahamas?

File: _DSF0072-2.jpg (721KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

721KB, 1000x1500px

>>2751717
Am I? I don't have a Hasselblad, and my fiance is 30... But I go to Aruba a lot, and post photos from there so... You tell me?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

>>2751722
Trim, that's the one.
Maybe I was confused about the 'blad. Do you do square crops a lot?
And IDGAF about coconut nations they're all the same to me.

>>2751725
old ass wife?

>>2748432
related, why is the ziess 90 instead of 85 anyway?

File: 24x24.jpg (57KB, 400x267px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 400x267px

>>2744877

Well if I need more than 16MP I've got a good Mamiya RB setup and a few rolls of Ektar/Portra

I'm not even zozzled

>>2752631
Maybe because of some design thing, maybe it's because 90 is/was a popular FL on view cameras back in the day so they were nodding to that. Who knows though.

>>2752631
90 has always been a popular focal length. Contax rangefinder as well as many famous macro lenses. not to mention many Leica 90mm lenses. what difference does it make? focal length markings on lenses aren't accurate to the digit anyways.

>>2752661
That and most focal lengths are incredibly arbitrary. Below about 24mm, the difference in every mm becomes more pronounced, so it's worth your while to differentiate between something like 20 and 21mm, or 18mm and 16mm etc.

Once you get into the short-telephoto range of 75mm and up there isn't a a very big variation in FoV if two lenses are within say 10mm of each other. So it's really splitting hairs when discussing an 85 vs 90mm equivalent lens.

Finally got my hands on an X-Pro 2 today. It's an awesome camera (almost ideal in every way for me), but the OVF felt absolutely tiny, wasn't what expecting that at all.

>>2752690
bread on xpro2 or didn't happen

>>2752690
What about the EVF? That's supposed to be bigger than the X-T10.

Also, have you used an XP1/X100 before?

>>2745064
How do I unlock my D7000's secret megapixels

>>2748432
If this trigger you better don't go look at the pentax primes

>>2753188
Panorama stitching

>>2750356
Images from the D70 looks great in my opinion.

Any news if the x100t will be getting an update with the new film simulations, grain effects and the like?

>>2754251
Reddit doesn't know, that's my news.

File: 11193316_10203812992470932_5515909531486276454_n.jpg (111KB, 642x884px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 642x884px

I hear either a lot of shit about Fuji or a lot of praise. Why is it like this?

>>2754339
The Fuji system has a lot of excellent glass capable of excellent photos.
Also some Fuji users are overly enthusiastic about their camera and aggressively shilling everyone (khm... like that isi guy who got dropped out of artschool) and most people don't like that.

>>2754339
>>2754343
>Also some Fuji users are overly enthusiastic about their camera and aggressively shilling everyone (khm... like that isi guy who got dropped out of artschool) and most people don't like that.
You'll mostly hear positive things from people who either used to shoot manual with film cameras and love the ergonomics or people who love the IQ.
Few cameras on the market handle the same way as the X series, which is what makes them so special to some people.

Some people can't get over the cost of lenses or don't like the IQ when using Lightroom. Some are pixel peepers who can't live with 16/24 megapixels and only want to shoot Full frame with an A7/s/r/II.

>>2754355
pretty much. I dithed the d7100 for X-t1, and as I always shoot full manual i never been happier for going with Fuji. Iq is so much nicer than anything i used before.

>>2754355
You don't understand. If you are saying something and being an aggressive asshole about it, people will hate you no matter what you say or if it is true or not.
If you are so persistent about it people will also get tired of your shit and get tired of what you are talking about, very quickly.
The topic has no part in this. Say what you want and spark up discussions but don't be an ass about it. That's it. That isi guy I was talking about has gone so far up his/her own ass, will be met with hatred and rejection because of this, no matter how nice his approach.
Most of the Fuji hate on the board comes from this. His character and behavior got connected with Fuji so all the dismissal and hatred gets spilled over to Fuji as well.

tl;dr: The Fuji hate here is about a person, not about the cameras or their performance.

>>2754339
Also shallow DoF in landscape is a big no-no. This photo would've been a lot better if more of the foliage and the road is in focus.

>>2754364
This is the epitome of shitty /p/-tier critique.

>>2754364
Gotta be a troll. Nobody can be that fucking stupid.

>>2754372
Look at that photo and tell me what is the subject, what did the photographer wanted to show? Is it the road? No, too much of it is out of focus, not enough to show it as a subject. Is it the trees? No, the trees both in front and behind the road are out of focus. Is it the sunrays? Could be, but too much is out of focus in them to make a solid composition.
Face it, there is literally everything out of focus in that photo, it is telling us absolutely nothing.

>>2744877
get zozzl'd?

English, motherfucker, do you speak it?

>>2754363
>If you are saying something and being an aggressive asshole about it, people will hate you no matter what you say or if it is true or not.

This applies perfectly to people who constantly trash isi, as well. Not everything is about her. Just filter her and shut the fuck up already.

>>2754381
Christ

>>2754390
No, I definitely did not see him in the photo. Maybe he's just out of focus.

>>2754381
The fucking light is the subject, you worthless piece of shit. It's literally focusing on the God rays.

>>2754442
>god rays
>god
>he doesn't know light is a physical phenomenon unrelated to deities and theological concepts
It's still a shit photo

>>2754442
I'm not him, and I'll say the rays of light are obviously the subject, and they look neat, but I'm not at all sure what the ultra thin DOF does to support the image. The blurry foreground is really distracting to me, and makes me feel like it's a babbys first prime style photo. Thin DOF doesn't make most photos better.

>>2754442
>>2754390
>>2754372
>>2754376
can we for once not get triggered when someone suggests a photo should be focused

File: fujifilmcansofbeer[1].jpg (36KB, 640x410px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 640x410px

do you want extra megapickles?
or do you want extra beer?

this is the question.
fujifilm know you better than you know yourself.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1024
Image Height	512
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:15 10:16:58
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	640
Image Height	410

>>2754476
I'm not an artschool dropout so I can afford a lot more beer along my semi-pro DSLR and lenses. I don't need a pro DSLR because I don't have to resort to make a living from my hobby.

>>2754485
but you are a school dropout because you cant fucking understand the picture and that it represents a scale.

File: hqdefault[1].jpg (15KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 480x360px

>>2754445
feeling euphoric are we?

>>2754343
>isi guy
isi is female.

>>2754355
>cost of lenses
What? The price of Fujinon lenses are fantastic for what you get compared to Nikon/Canon pricing for their premium lenses. The only exceptions being the 50-140mm and 100-400mm, but those prices are to be expected and are still cheaper than the Nikon/Canon equivalents.

>>2754641
Why are you supporting the failed concept of gender, shitlord?

>>2754666
can't pull focus manually. fucking awful experience.

>>2754666
I have no problems with the cost of lenses. Fuji gave me fast crop focal lengths and I have pretty much every length I need for the system. My only nag is with the focus by wire and electronic aperture control though.

There are people out there though that complain about spending more than around £300 for each lens. Maybe it's because there are a lot more 2nd hand Canon/Nikon lenses out there for them.

>>2754666
Nikon has a truly shit premium APS-C lens lineup. Same with Canon although slightly better. Can't compare FF Canikon lenses to Fuji

>>2754666
>The price of Fujinon lenses are fantastic for what you get
This is true, but some people just don't want to pay more than $400 for a lens. Fuji doesn't have much of a budget selection in the XF line.

>>2755774
16-50 is cheap as shit, 27 isn't hard either , just gotta go used

>>2755777
Yes, but what about muh 35mm equivalent prime, and muh 85mm equivalent prime, and my kit zoom, etc.

Also, 16-50 isn't XF is it? (Pedantic and unimportant)

>>2755782
It's XC.
It's plastic and still wonderful.

File: FOTO0289_v1.jpg (443KB, 650x1025px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 650x1025px

>>2755785
Got some wicked barrel distortion tho but that's a fair trade for 24mm equiv

>>2755786
Looks sharp enough for actual photography, to me.

>>2755788
It's also actually a fast focuser, even on the xpro1.
Due to the lighter construction and the fact that the xf zoom aperture rings tend to move too easy, and the wider end, I find I prefer it to my old 18-55. Doesn't zoom creep either which is a big of a prob for the 18-55 eventually

File: FOTO0271_v1.jpg (494KB, 950x725px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 950x725px

>>2755792
Bit*
Wew lad my spelling today