Fuji X100T. prob gonna get some flack for posting this in a

>>2903095
Original X100 still has the best sensor and there are some "new" ones floating around on ebay for about 500 bucks.

>>2903102
why does the first one have a better sensor?

R I C O H G R
I
C
O
H
G
R

You can add dust to taste. The X70 is also a feasible option although almost every review has found the lens worse than GR's.

>>2903141
Also I misread the OP a bit, I thought you were looking for less flashy alternatives for X100T, not that you were looking at the X100T as a less flashy alternative for what you have now.

The X100T is a great camera.

>>2903095
Learn how to use flickr pools you retard.

>>2903102
I don't really care about the price.

>>2903144
I am looking for decent examples from an X100T

>>2903154
Flickr pools from this camera are full of shit photographers who don't know how to process images, unfortunately.

I guess it's a bit silly of me to expect anything different from 4chan, but worth a shot.

>>2903185
>I guess it's a bit silly of me to expect anything different from 4chan, but worth a shot.
It's a bit silly of you to expect people to go out of their way to post shit when there are copious amounts of samples out there (including raw files you can download and play with yourself) just a quick search away.

>>2903195
RAW files you can download and play with? Can't say I've ever seen that.

>>2903242
Haven't looked too hard, have you?
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/fujifilm_x100t_review/sample_images/

>>2903249
I mean wow, it's the first google hit.

Sorry, I guess I meant to say I can't say I've seen something like that where the photos are even worth looking at.

No sense in editing shit samples bruh

>>2903254
Nigger, the "photos are even worth looking at" is a function of the photographer. Samples are for illustrating technical capability. If you can't look through samples and know if it's enough/not enough camera for what you want, I can promise, you're not ever going to make "photos worth looking at".

>>2903259
Hm, do you even take photos?

I think what you just implied is that properly hitting focus and exposing correctly, somehow don't have an affect on the end result of a RAW image, if either are incorrectly executed.

That's all sorts of confusing to me.

>>2903263
You're a special kind of stupid.

BTW, it's confusing to you because you came up with such an inept strawman that you can't even see how it relates.

>>2903267
I'll explain further -

When you're looking at samples of images where someone is shooting wide open and is incapable of landing focus properly, because shaky hands or retarded shutter depression... well that affects the sharpness of the photo.

Likewise, if the person is a complete retard who generally exposes shit poorly, especially when working with higher ISOs, that will also diminish the "technical capabilities" of the sensor, but is a user error issue.

Both are things that the images within the link you posted, suffer from. So it's impossible to understand the technical capabilities of the thing, because the person handling the device is clearly an inept retard with a camera.

Does that help clarify?

File: fujifilm_x100t_02.jpg (427KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 1000x667px

>>2903277
It helps clarify that you're a literal idiot.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X100T
Camera Software	Digital Camera X100T Ver1.44
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2014:10:27 12:16:11
Exposure Time	0.3 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Brightness	2.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	23.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Sharpness	Normal
White Balance	Auto
Chroma Saturation	Normal
Flash Mode	Off
Macro Mode	Off
Focus Mode	Auto
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
Picture Mode	Aperture Prior AE
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	Off
Blur Status	Blur Warning
Focus Status	OK
Auto Exposure Status	OK

>>2903282
Yes, because a photo of books gives me an idea of the practical capabilities of a camera.

Go out and take photos, experience things - you speak about this as if you've read it off of the web.

>>2903286
>Yes, because a photo of books gives me an idea of the practical capabilities of a camera.

If you actually took photographs yourself, it would.

>Go out and take photos, experience things - you speak about this as if you've read it off of the web.

There might be some bite to this if our positions were reversed, but as is? You're showing how little experience you have with photography if you think that something like the above picture and the many other samples available online aren't good enough to evaluate the body. Further, you're also showing that you don't have a good enough reputation with anyone who could lend you one to get hands on with it, and you apparently haven't even considered just renting the thing for a few days to see if the really important bits about the practicality of a camera (i.e. how it actually controls) are right for you.

But yeah, you're right. Experienced photographers are all about coming on 4chan, demanding samples be posted, then whining when they aren't.

>>2903292
You seem awfully triggered by such a simple question, lmao. I guess I am on 4chan.

>>2903295
Not quite as triggered as someone who gets upset because people aren't pandering to his wishes, but sure thing. I'm redfaced and frothing at the mouth. In the meantime, you still don't know how to evaluate if a camera suits your needs.

>>2903298
The only person who is "upset" here is the guy saying things like...

>nigger
>you're not going to make photos worth looking at
>you're a special kind of stupid
>you came up with such an inept strawman
>you're a literal idiot

Which isn't me.

Nobody's demanded anything, it was a simple request. The only person who is upset is you, lol.

I also find it a bit strange that you seem to think highly enough of yourself as an authority of how to select a camera, yet you think static photos of books are a good representation of things like dynamic range, which is significantly important as part of practical application.

It's okay if you're internet educated. We all start somewhere.

>>2903303
>The only person who is "upset" here is the guy saying things like...
New to the internet are we?
>I also find it a bit strange that you seem to think highly enough of yourself as an authority of how to select a camera, yet you think static photos of books are a good representation of things like dynamic range, which is significantly important as part of practical application.

It's beautiful that you think you're showing how knowledgeable you are while just revealing ignorance.

Homie, as far as the static part goes, Dynamic Range has nothing to do with movement.

Oh, that was the only file on that page? I seem to recall that image was repeated at different ISOs (which I'm sure you don't understand why that's an indicator of DR performance), then there are RAW files with significant shadowed areas that you can download, throw in some post processing program and slide that exposure slider around to your hearts content to see how much latitude the file has...and that's just this one site. It's also like you're unaware of dxomark who can tell you quite clearly what the DR is of the image and provide you with sample pictures there.

But yeah, keep claiming to be experienced and knowledgeable about this subject. You're really fooling everyone.

So can you start tripping? I don't want to filter you, I want to subscribe.

>>2903309
It's funny, I used to think like you - dxomark, bookshelf images, etc.

Then I actually took photos for a year... and all of that is still directionally useful, but in the end, not much of it actually applies to practical use.

I've seen some really nice images out of the X100T. I was just hoping to see some more

File: thegame.png (2MB, 737x925px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 737x925px

>>2903311
Because seeing shots without also having seen the corresponding conditions under which they were taken and without knowing what post processing was done to them can tell you sooo much about the camera.

Let's play a game.

Was this taken with a good camera or a shit camera?

>>2903320
Then after you tell us if that's a good or a shit camera, what's the focal length, aperture, and ISO?

If you're moderately well versed in dealing with digital photography, you should be able to get within the ballpark of all three.

>>2903320
I don't really care what has been done in post - I am fully capable of doing my own quality post work...

...so if the overall image quality is up to my standard in challenging situations (I know what these are, because I actually take photos), then it's a win for me.

As for your question or game - it doesn't matter. Shit photographers can make shit images with excellent gear.

>>2903322
Anyone with half a brain "dealing with digital photography" would know that there could be extreme variances in any of these settings depending on if this was hand held or with a tripod.

File: thegame.jpg (266KB, 1211x685px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 1211x685px

>>2903327
>would know that there could be extreme variances in any of these settings
Amusingly, all of those leave identifiable effects on the image. I'll admit that's a little shit of a version of that image for ISO, but focal length and aperture are pretty clear.

>handheld or tripod
Yes, those are the two absolutely biggest factors in determining those settings. Definitely.

Can you not even tell what focal length this was taken at?

I mean you must have great visual literacy if you've been taking pictures for a full year and since you "actually take photos", please educate us unwashed masses.

File: 140902161950.jpg (216KB, 795x1200px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 795x1200px

>>2903095
I use the better Ricoh version of this camera, I recommend it unreservedly.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2903095
>international trips
Are you a spy, a playboy, a racing car driver? Please post pics.

>>2903337
Sei un cretino

Fuck the OP is annoying as fuck.

>>2903107
EXR is a way better sensor than X-Trans. Especially in the color department, and it also doesn't suffer from the countless problems with sharpening and etc from X-Trans raws.

>>2903185
>I don't really care about the price.
I didn't say that was the reason to get it, it's only a plus. What do you care about? quality?

If so, then original X100.

>>2903337
considering buildings don't lean backwards, it's easily 20mm or wider

>>2903647
OP here: you can't know that without knowing if the photographer shot that handheld or using a tripod. You'd know that if you took pictures. I do. You don't.

You expect us to think you're some kind of wizard or something? You just get your information off of the internet. I take pictures. I've done it for at least a year. I know this stuff. You could too if you took pictures. But you don't. Take pictures that is. Or know that. There are all kinds of varied conditions, which you'd know if you took pictures. After all, it's impossible to know if a tripod was used.

But you don't take pictures--I take pictures which is why I think the way I do now, absolutely euphoric being freed from thinking pictures of shelves are any use at all, you should join me, by taking pictures--which is why you are wrong.

>>2903555
The original X100 is very slow in operation though.

>>2903676
You quoted the OP by saying "OP here."

Serious desperation.

File: 4pgpNcN.jpg (63KB, 480x608px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 480x608px

>>2903676
Oh my god mom a whole year

Btw retarded thread and retarded argument guys. You're both autistic as fuck, bouncing off of eachother's autism like a pinball machine. It's incredible to watch

>>2903904
I think the example given meant like shooting, for clients, with expectations, on a weekly basis, with deliverables.

Something 99% of /p/ knows nothing about, considering how much "artistic" trash is on this board.

>>2903917
Shooting for clients is fucking easy. Give me a Canon Powershot from early 2000's and I can make any client happy. I think you've deluded yourself into thinking it's hard to push a button.

>>2903936
ok good luck getting printed on a legitimate publication with your early 2000's powershot.

You are clueless. It shows.

>>2903939
Keep moving that goalpost kid, I'll be taking pictures. Because that's what I do, take pictures.

>>2903904
I remember a thread about that.
https://warosu.org/lit/thread/7542440

>>2903941
I'm sorry that your lack of experience didn't help you understand what the word "clients" meant.

Projecting much?

>>2903676
>I do. You don't.
show me where he hurt your feelings

>>2903977
Finally someone that gets it.

File: thegaem.png (377KB, 1203x808px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 1203x808px

>>2903647
>considering buildings don't lean backwards, it's easily 20mm or wider
HAHAHAHA. Oh god. Glad to see you're still around.

You did manage to stumble on getting close to the correct answer (17mm, as anyone with either enough visual literacy or enough ability with Google could image search and find out, I suspect you're the latter because...) while citing something that makes you even more retarded as the reason for it.

You truly are the gift that keeps on giving.

See pic related? That building is straight. You're just used to seeing uncorrected perspectives. The lens used was the Canon T/S E 17mm. That has literally nothing at all to do with focal length. You can have movements on a 300mm lens (it'd be ridiculously large to still project a large enough image circle, but that's beside the point) and make a building look like that.
>>2903676
heh, I approve.

>>2904010
>search would find out
There, it's almost like I speak English now.

Sorry, just woke up.

>>2904010
>the building is straight
>building lines skew across the guidance lines in... whatever strange processing program being used here

you are some kind of special stupid, dude...

>>2904012
Read up on two point perspective homie.

>>2904015
I understand why a wide angle portrays a building leaning over... I'm not sure why you're telling me I need to educate myself when you're the one who is seemingly arguing that the building is straight up and down and not distorted by the lens.

You seem to be mistaking my commentary as implying the horizon isn't straight, when I never said anything of the sort.

Go out, take photos, experience the world, etc.

>>2904018
Yet you still miss that corner is perfectly straight retard, which wouldn't be the case if it weren't perspective corrected.

HAHAHA, omg, you don't know what camera movements are or how the TSE 17mm allows for movements on a DSLR...holy shit.

>>2904020
It's nobody's fault but the user's that they did not correctly use their tilt shift lens. It's not straight. You are clueless.

OP of the x100s thread here, if you're looking for good examples, check out David Hobby (the strobist) stuff

https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidhobby/albums/72157633301773916

File: 1471288525187.png (421KB, 1203x808px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 1203x808px

>>2904023
You're so good at this.

>>2904024
Thanks, I've seen quite good ones here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/flixel/albums/72157666492736312

Everything else I've seen, including the one you linked (no offense) has been quite poor in quality though.

>>2904025
Do you not see the aliasing on the main line running down the building in your own example?

That means the line isn't straight, special guy.

>>2904026
>>2904024
To explain further, my advanced aesthetics and experience of 1 year place me well above those of working professionals.

>>2904028
The aliasing was my fault. That particular line is one the corner.

Irrespective, that has nothing to do with the focal length.

>>2904029
You're so emotionally invested, you're now attempting to "be me."

I am a working professional, thanks tho

>>2904031
lol ok back pedal harder now - the focal length has nothing to do with the perspective or the fact that it is warped from lens distortion that not even a tilt shift can completely solve for

>>2904033
>lol ok back pedal harder now
That isn't back pedaling. And seriously, do we need to bring up how often you back pedal and move goalposts?
>the focal length has nothing to do with the perspective or
It doesn't. Not the first thing.

>the fact that it is warped from lens distortion that not even a tilt shift can completely solve for
I love how you're just literally stating the exact opposite of reality, stating it as though it's fact, and attempting to be superior.

You're seriously a worthless cunt.

>>2904037
>focal length has nothing to do with perspective
totally, because the single thing that allows the camera to have a field of view couldn't possibly determine where you stand to frame a particular image

you are literally an idiot.

I'm still waiting for you to go sperglord and start posting some of your own images so we can laugh at your mediocrity.

Or perhaps the trash you already posted was yours, which is even more hilarious, because why the fuck would anyone who is serious about photography by a toy of a lens like a tilt shift, lol.

>>2904038
>because the single thing that allows the camera to have a field of view
>the single thing
I'm an idiot. Gotcha.

You still haven't posted your "professional work of 1 year".

>toy lens like a tilt shift
So professional.

>>2904040
I've been on 4chan long enough to know that I could post Ansel Adam's long lost unidentified work, and after a conversation like this, you'd still call it shitty anyway.

You are somehow implying that the camera sees without a lens, I guess? LOL

>>2904043
>I've been on 4chan long enough to know that I could post Ansel Adam's long lost unidentified work, and after a conversation like this, you'd still call it shitty anyway.
Sure thing.

>You are somehow implying that the camera sees without a lens, I guess? LOL
Nope. I'm saying you're a worthless cunt and implying that the quoted portion of text is incorrect in such an elementary manner that it's laughable.

>>2904047
right, because what the camera sees doesn't determine your perspective, based on you, as the user, decides to frame the image?

>>2904049
Man it's almost as if that's not the point and no matter how many times you keep posting it, it won't become the point.

Why not go read up on perspective for a while.

>>2904052
You continue to dodge the point.

Perspective, based on your framing, is 100% dependent on your choice of lens.

You cannot sit there and state otherwise. You would not stand in the same place to frame the same image with a 17mm lens vs a 300mm lens.

You were the one yapping on about "moving the goalposts," and now here you are attempting to argue that perspective isn't directly related to what you fucking visualize with your own two eyes, or in this case, what the fucking sensor sees. There is no perspective when there isn't a fucking lens on the camera, because it sees nothing.

You've lost and now you're resorting to "read up on perspective," in order to retreat back into a corner of failure.

>>2904057
>Perspective, based on your framing, is 100% dependent on your choice of lens.
Firstly, framing is not perspective.
Secondly, no, it is not 100% based on choice of lens.

>You would not stand in the same place to frame the same image with a 17mm lens vs. a 300mm lens.
Actually, that can be exactly possible.

I've lost nothing.

You're still a worthless cunt btw.

>>2904059
I never said anything about framing "being perspective." Perhaps you need to brush up on your English.

Here is a graphical representation to help you understand that lens has everything to do with where you stand, thus completely changes perspective based on intended framing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SCBMaJliUU

Hopefully this helps you become less clueless.

>>2904063
>I never said anything about framing "being perspective." Perhaps you need to brush up on your English.
Yeah, you don't keep equivocating the to to the point where you actually had to redefine perspective to be framing. Gotcha. I'm definitely the one who is sloppily using two distinct terms interchangeably.

But again, no, lens focal length is still not the 100% determining factor in field of view or framing. It never has been and never will be.

>>2904068
Totally - so you just walk up to your subject, determine your framing and field of view without even considering what focal length you're going to put in front of your sensor.... then slap on a random lens and fire away on that shutter, right?

No, nobody does that, unless you're a complete fucking retard, I guess.

In fact, based on your suggestion, we may as well eliminate viewfinders, because the glass in front of the sensor doesn't matter anyway, right?

Again, "interchangeably" using terms, because of experience and actually taking photos vs. reading shit off 4chan and spewing bullshit as if you have a clue.

>>2904068
>>2904063
Whoops, I forgot to remind you:

You're a worthless cunt, and from your inability to reason and egomania, odds are you'll always be a worthless cunt.

>>2904076
Your silly and completely uncreative inflammatory commentary does not affect me in any form or fashion.

I'm not the retard arguing that lens choice doesn't affect where one stands, thus affects perspective.

>>2904075
Heh, that's exactly what I mean. Wow, you created that ignorant assed strawman so very well!

Unlike you, I'm not dicking around with language. I'm saying exactly what I mean.

Focal length is not the 100% determinant of field of view.

I gotta tell you, your experience is pretty worthless if you still can't figure out where your insistence that focal length is 100% of field of view and framing. I'll even give you a hint, I'm not even being an autistic asshole and trying to pull something about creative choice.

But, you're a worthless cunt, so all that bloodloss from your gaping hatchet wound won't allow your brain enough oxygen to actually function critically for one brief moment.

>>2904079
>I'm not the retard arguing that lens choice doesn't affect where one stands, thus affects perspective.
And now we're moving away from focal length to lens in general...but you're not sloppy with language and can't possibly see how those two things can be distinct, can you?

Anyway: No, you're the one arguing that that's the ONLY thing that determines it, which is just as retarded as whatever strawmans you decide to keep throwing up.

>furious googling
>flustered thinking
>spittle forming
B-b-buut I'M NOT WRONG!, the worthless cunt cries into the void. Who is this asshole who thinks all of his fancy book learning can stand up to my ONE YEAR, ONE YEAR of experience! It can't. Physics and optics be damned! I. Am. Right. !.

>>2904088
So tell me, what other than focal length determines where you stand (thus determines your perspective) in relation to your subject/

>>2904102
I dunno, why don't you tell me why you won't get the same framing standing in the same spot shooting an smc FA 645 200mm as a Panasonic 45-200mm (zoomed to 200mm) as a Nikkor M 200mm. I mean focal length is the 100% only determining factor of field of view after all, so there's absolutely no reason why you'd ever have to move to get the same framing between using these different lenses.

so guys, how about dem fujis eh?

>>2904113
Shit because all of the pictures posted online by them are abject shit. If you took pictures for one year, you'd know.

>>2904111
We're talking about 35mm equiv, you autistic fuck. It's abundantly clear you literally sit on the internet and read dumb shit on taking photos vs. actually going out and experiencing anything you are talking about.

I bet in the rare instance you actually get out and do something, your shit looks as terrible as Ken Rockwell's trash.

>>2904115

I'm not any of the fags who's been here before, I am actually interested in the fuji x series

File: 8530924.jpg (115KB, 386x411px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 386x411px

>>2904111
>>2904116
Like, I gotta double post on this shit, cause I'm literally laughing this hard.

>"let me pull out the strangest, most obscure reason for saying that focal length doesn't mean shit, by talking about lenses from cameras that aren't 35 equiv, as if that means anything"

I'll generalize even further for your autistic ass. The magnification of any specific piece of glass, in general to what you put on your sensor - wide or long, is what determines where you place your two fucking feet from the subject, thus determining your perspective.

>>2904116
>We're talking about 35mm equiv, you autistic fuck.
Sure thing buddy. That's exactly why this entire time I've said, no field of view/framing is not 100% controlled by focal length. How was I to know at that point that you were so incompetent at communicating that you would mean only a very narrow subset of cases of using a given focal length when you say that focal length is the 100% determining factor in field of view. I mean, absolute statements never, ever are intended to mean what they say absolutely.
>It's abundantly clear you literally sit on the internet
Last few days yeah. Getting sick is a bitch.
>and read dumb shit on taking photos vs. actually going out and experiencing anything you are talking about.
I love how you feel the need to throw this out there. Here's something for you to chew on: I don't automatically default to thinking 200mm=200mm on 135 because I don't always deal with 135. But nah, you're right. There's literally no possible way that's the case. I'm a fat NEET who doesn't own a camera.

>>2904120
So obscure that Nikon's been including a dx and fx mode on their cameras for quite a while now and Canon put a 1.3x, 1.6x, and full frame choice on their 5Ds...man that year has done you well.

>>2904130
Yeah and if you think for a second that's not specifically targeted at people who bought a D5300 and have a bunch of DX lenses, trying to move them into buying a D750 cause "muh image quality, but I got no glass," then you are fucking retarded.

>>2904126
The field of view/framing is absolutely still 100% controlled by focal length.

Just because various sensor or film sizes see through the same focal length measurement, does not mean that the sensor does not receive 100% of it's image and magnification based on whatever piece of glass you put in front of it.

>>2904132
>>2904132
>Yeah and if you think for a second that's not specifically targeted at people who bought a D5300 and have a bunch of DX lenses, trying to move them into buying a D750 cause "muh image quality, but I got no glass," then you are fucking retarded.
It's like you're unaware that a sizeable number 1D users were pissed when they moved to full frame from APS-H.

But Professional Professionals of 1 Year experience definitely know more than those guys choose to use crop modes in spite of having the massively more correct full frame.

Speaking of, if crop is so inferior, why are you so interested in an APS-C sensor camera? Haven't made enough in that year of photographic experience to afford a proper full frame?

>>2904135
Oh lord, you're not seriously trying to equate image circle and field of view...are you? Please tell me you're not being that stupid.

Also please tell me that you're not going to be so stupid as to think all lenses of the same focal length have the same sized image circle...

I mean you're dumb and a worthless cunt, but I can't honestly believe you're that dumb.

File: 14037754_10207004173012198_1627397445_o.jpg (291KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 2048x1152px

>>2904137
I'd buy an RX1R II, but I'm not interested in taking a $3,200 camera to 3rd world countries.

I've got plenty of gear already for big boy use.

>>2904146
Damn, imagine the images you could create if you had even a small clue how to use that gear.

>>2904154
I'd post my work, but unfortunately, it's far too easily identifiable with a simple reverse image search.