>Fuji XT2/XPRO2 + 56mm APD Hey Fuji bros, I am trying to

If you're doing portraits at night, you should know that the APD actually has lower light collection due to the filter at larger apertures, so you'll need to compensate for that.

My regular 56 does alright on my XPro2 on the contrast detection points with good light (it's never been a fast-focusing lens). Just did a test shot with indoors lighting and dark room (with only light coming in from other rooms, kind of how I figure a street at night might be and it found focus on 2-4 seconds.

Regarding the 60mm macro lens: It is a pretty sharp lens, but it is painfully slow to focus, especially so in low light. Fine for studio, but it will be a painful experience on a dimly lit street. Expect to wait over 6 seconds for it to find focus.

File: DSCF0919-Edit.jpg (477KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

477KB, 1000x667px

>>2971330
I also have an XP2 and the non-APD 56. I can back what the other anon said up, the 56 isn't a fast-focusing lens in anybody's book, but it IS generally quite accurate. It may take a few seconds to focus, but it almost always gets it right once it's done.

I wish I had more examples to post but I've been in a slump for the last year and haven't done many shoots.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.4 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.2
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	84 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:23 13:30:25
Exposure Time	1/70 sec
F-Number	f/1.2
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.2
Brightness	0.6 EV
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	56.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2971532
>>2971330

>flagship lens
>flagship body
>2-4 seconds to focus

This is why you never go fuji.

>>2971574
I wouldn't call the 56 a flagship lens. Their 50-140/2.8 or perhaps the 90/2 are.

>>2971596
It's the flagship lens to people who are only interested in how wide their aperture is

>>2971574
>This is why you didn't used to go fuji.

Here, FTFY

Is the X-T1 still worth getting?

They're dirt cheap now, found one mint for 530 euro dollars.

>>2971603
where?

>>2971611
Danish second hand site where I live. A lot of T1s were put up after the T2 came out and I ended up pushing the price a bit. I think it's a pretty good get for around 500 euros, no?

One even sold it for 500 with the kit 18-55 still on it. Someone else copped it right before me, but that was clearly too cheap.

>>2971624
that's a really really good get

>>2971626
Nice. Now I really want the 23mm 1.4. Prolly harder to get.

>>2971596
There should be at least 5 primes and 3 pro zooms in a flagship range.

>>2971600
Nah, i used to go fuji, they're medium format film stuff is great. They're new shit is so much of a joke, not even tamron, tokina and sigma make lenses for them. Metz don't even do a flash for them. And their lens department has zero direction, they still only have one pro zoom! People joked about sonys lens lineup, but now its variety destroys fuji, pentax and m43, and is quickly catching up to nikon. Sonys lens quality clearly surpasses all the competition.

>>2971636
>not even tamron, tokina and sigma make lenses for them.

That has more to do with potential sale than quality though.

>>2971636

>Sony retards actually believe this

Kek

>>2971650
Fuji aren't aiming for a niche market.
They just have terrible sales figures.

They had a similar launch date, have similar availability, and targeted a similar price point to sony's mirrorless options, there's no reason that x-mount should be so, so far behind e-mount. Except of course if they brought out inferior products that no one wanted to buy.

Considering every new photographer loves the external aesthetic, and used sony parts, they must have really fucked up somewhere to lose all those sales.

Could it be their lack of upgrade path, lack of affordable or high quality lenses, lack of ibis, lack of any sort of flash system that isn't shite, i don't know, but whatever it is has caused this knock on effect. Not only do the customers not care for them, neither do the 3rd party brands.

>>2971658
>every review says sonys lenses smash the competition, objectively AND subjectively.
>hurr, only a sony user would believe that.

>>2971629
Get it, it's a sick lens.

I have a xt-10 and 23 1.4, and it's just a complete unstoppable package. It's superb for travelling and the low light capabilities will make you smile.

The size is big, but I think it's worth it.

File: 1456326737509.jpg (197KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 600x600px

>>2971574
>he thinks the 56/1.2 is the flagship lens
LOOK AT HIM AND LAUGH PEOPLE

Everyone knows it's an adapted Zeiss C/Y 85/1.4 and the 90/2
>>2971636
Friendly reminder that Sony would be fucking nowhere if Contax hadn't been mismanaged by Kyocera

>>2971672
>using an adapted full frame lens on crop
>using an f1.4 lens without af
>f2 on crop, on a portrait lens
>same price as sonys far superior 90mm macro

Lol

>sony wouldn't be where they are if contax + kyocera...

2 companies that have had literally nothing to do with e mount.

Lol

The delusion drive is at full power today huh

File: 3.jpg (22KB, 468x299px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 468x299px

>>2971674
Lol!

>>2971661

> Fujifilm, maker of Hasselblad's lenses after Zeiss started going pleb tier
> 90mm F2 WR sharper than Leica 90mm f2 'the Razor' with weather sealing, silent magnet powered autofocus, all metal construction and can be found for as little as £450
'No affordable or high quality lenses'

>>2971661

'lack of high quality lenses' You do know what system we are talking about right? This is the one that Zeiss stopped making lenses for after everyone realised the native lenses were optically superior and more readily available.

If your 56mm takes 2 - 4 seconds to focus, are you trying to focus on black people who don't smile in the deep shadows?
I don't own one anymore, but even on the X-E1 it always had focus in like 0.5 - 0.8 seconds. Mind you, 0.8 seconds is slow, but this was in poor as fuck tungsten light, and the X-E1 is like Fuji's worst focusing camera.

I still have the X-E1 and it's painful to use with the 35mm 1.4 or the 60mm macro, but very useful with the 55-200 and 23mm 1.4.

>>2971707
PS: I hate fuji for the simple reason that each and every one of their impressive amount of primes is to some level interesting to me... Now they're even making different versions of previous lenses...

14mm is nice and compact, very good partner focal length for 23mm and 56mm. It's also optically fantastic.
16mm is fucking nice, even if ~24mm FOV isn't that much my thing, the 1.4 and WR are good for city shooting and it can get nice and close.
18mm f/2: super compact and a nice focal length. I actually love this and got to buy it SUPER cheap because everyone poops all over it. Some of my favorites are with the lowly 18mm and X-E1.
23mm f/2 WR; not my favorite, but so fast to snapshot.
23mm 1.4: my every day lens that got me into the system.
35mm f/2: again, everyone seems to love it, but not convinced. Nice to handle and quick to focus though.
35mm 1.4: loving the images I get from this. Another go-to lens, but a bit slow.
56mm 1.2: love it, everything about it, sold it because I only shot it one day every 2 - 3 months. Fuck the APD version though; not for me.
60mm macro: still own it, does 99% of what I did with the 56mm
90mm: kinda want, but it's too long for me. Even the 60 is usually already too long.

>>2971692
>'lack of high quality lenses' You do know what system we are talking about right? This is the one that Zeiss stopped making lenses for after everyone realised the native lenses were optically superior and more readily available.
s-shut up!
-Sigfriend from Zeiss

>>2971728
Could you explain why you prefer the old 23mm and 35mm over the newer ones? I know they're a stop slower and just a tad less sharp, but the AF is faster and quieter, and they are WR.

>>2971661
>2011+5
>still believes sales numbers are tied to product quality in any way

>>2971738
Not that goyim but the new 23/2 isn't that great. A lot of people give it great reviews but I sold mine off already.
It doesn't feel as solid as the 1.4, no distance scale, Wide open it was horrible compared to the 1.4 stopped down. For being smaller or lighter, it wasn't worth it in the same way that the 35/2 was. The 23/1.4 is well balanced, not "heavy" and honestly not that big compared to almost every other 35mm equiv lens (even more so when you count AF). The problem with comparing the 1.4 to the 2 when you've owned and used both is that the 1.4 is just that much better. It's leagues ahead. The only downsides to the lens are that it's on a closed system, electronic aperture and focus by wire (but it's hard to find lenses that aren't doing this nowadays).

The 35/2 is a worthwhile replacement simply because the AF motor isn't taken from a compact film camera.

>>2971661
>They had a similar launch date, have similar availability, and targeted a similar price point to sony's mirrorless options
bull fucking shit, do you live in a city of over 5 million people and think that your city is an average?

Sony APS-C cameras are available at any Walmart, Best Buy, or Target in North America. Fujifilm products other than Instax, 35mm film, and compacts are seldom sold at any of these locations.

Fuji is explicitly a niche market, if we're looking at where the cameras are actually sold. They are not found in the traditional multi-market brick and mortar stores that Canikon and Sony cameras are found in. Fuji is as rare in a brick and mortar context as Pentax.

>>2971753
Very interesting you say that, Angry Photographer aka gearfag extraordinaire says it's a """must have""" - this comes after him laughing at me getting the 1.4 - which as you describe is the only relevant lens that a serious Fuji photographer should own.

I can't agree more, it's just such a damn good all-rounder, it's got the low light capabilities, it's got the IQ, it's got the build quality. I don't give a shit about the size, nor that it's not WR, I took mine to Iceland and it drizzled a lot and I didn't get a single issue with a bit of moisture on it.

>>2971738
I am that guy, I tested the new 23mm and it feels nicer, but it kinda sucks wide open in closer focus. Also just like the look of the old one better. If I did a lot of street photography I'd pick the f2 in a heartbeat, but for portraiture, events and concerts I opted to stick with the 1.4.

As for the 35mm, I shoot that mainly at 1.4 but don't really use it as much since the 23mm. I think I even use the 18mm more.

Fairly soon I'll get another job, and then I'll have enough income and a reason to give myself a reward. So, a wide angle for the x-pro2 it'll be.

Last I asked this, someone told me the 18mm is an introduction lens and therefore kind'a bullshit. What're the 16 and 14 like, in terms of focusing speed and usability with the OVF? Should I instead go for the 10-to-something zoom?

Also,
>buying a Fuji
>prime gearfag of platform is the Angry Photographer
<;__;

>>2971877
>Last I asked this, someone told me the 18mm is an introduction lens and therefore kind'a bullshit.
that was a gearfag, you stupid weeb

>>2971877
16mm is a bit dslr lens sized, 14mm is much more compact. I prefer the 14mm focal length, but in spite of small focal length diff, they are completely different lenses. 16mm is imho fuji's nicest lens together with the 90mm. Pretty much a no compromise lens.

Still prefer the 14mm fl though, and it can be had used for half of the 16mm price.

>>2971574
2-4 seconds is a huge exaggeration. I was just testing mine and even when trying to give it a hard time (focusing from 20' or so to minimum distance and back, in a poorly lit room with poor contrast) it only takes around 1.5 seconds at worst. When switching between subjects that are within a few feet of one another it's nearly instantaneous, and I've never had focus speed be a noticeable issue when doing actual photography. I also haven't installed the new firmware yet, and that's supposed to improve AF quite a bit.

It's definitely slower than a comparable DSLR setup, but not enough so that it matters if you're not sitting there testing focus speed on purpose.

Oh, tracking/AF-C is crap too, not just with this lens but with any Fuji. It can handle panning shots of race cars or birds decently, but this isn't the system to use if you need to shoot subjects that are moving erratically, especially if they're moving in 2 or 3 dimensions as with basketball or something.

Funny how everytime fujibros have a thread, theres some sonykeks who show up with their insecurities

>>2973577
>2-4 seconds to focus and effectively no af-c on a $3000 crop baby combo without a red dot.

That's something we can all laugh about

>>2973655
why not just say 6 seconds and $5000? Then it'll make your sony even better. Faggot.

>>2973660
it was a fuji owner that said 2-4 seconds
and an xpro2 and 56mm is 3k

good to see you getting triggered though homie, I shoot nikon.

>>2973680
So much trigger.

>In 2016
>People still religionizing "their" brand.
>Defend it and try to convert other people

I don't get it... does it make your Sony better if you can beat on Fuji? Does it make your Nikon better if you gloat about a poor Canon model?
Does it make you happy being a Fuji shooter if Sony makes some kind of massive fuckup in overheating?
Does it make your Sony better if Fuji takes 17 hours to focus on a calibration chart?

The answer to all of these is; go away and take/post pictures.

>>2973721
>realise how badly I purchased
>go away, i don't like you

K famalamajam

>>2973721
Dude, it's buyers remorse.
Then it comes down to personal preference. If you shoot in aperture priority (which a large chunk of /p/ does) then a Sony or Canon etc will be just fine for you.

>>2971663
Finally found the 23mm 1.4 used for 500 euros too. Decent get I think. Any cheaper and it would be a great get.

Can't wait to go shoot it.

>>2971728
Have you had much experience with the zooms? I've been considering selling my 18-55mm 'kitlens' to fund for a 23mm 1.4 but it's hard to justify because of how decent it is for its versatility

>>2974374
>I've been considering selling my 18-55mm 'kitlens' to fund for a 23mm 1.4

whynotboth.jpg

Is the Meike M350-F flash any good? Less than seventy eurobux on Honest Ali.

>>2974536
Too expensive

>>2974536
The 18-55 is the only junk lense Fuji make, it's a rite of passage if you get an XT-10, but I opted for just the body only.

>>2974683
Lol this idiot

>>2974683
You're either thinking of the XC 16-50 or you're plain wrong.

>>2974696
>XC 16-50
Oh yeah, woops, meant that one - my bad

>>2974705
But that lens isn't junk either.
Maybe you're just untalented.

>>2971780
My local Best Buy actually has a semi-decent X-system selection, I was quite surprised to see it last time I went in there. No X-Pro but they have XTs and XEs and some lenses, as well as the X100 and X70.

They're like a flagship photo store or something though, their department is huge with really slick displays and they sell high-end DSLR gear too, up to 5Ds and D810s and a good selection of 1.4 primes and 2.8 zooms, as well as all of the A7s and a good amount of Sony glass.

>>2971574

yet the nikon/canon 85 f1.2 might be some of the slowest of their primes to focus and no one bats an eye

>>2971663
I'm thinking about getting the 23mmf2, but do you think its wide enough from the 35mm primes to not seem redundant? I might hold off until they maybe update the 18mm, i've always heard it was the worst prime and isn't sealed so it might get the dust shaken off.

>>2974858
To be fair, those lenses are dealing with a substantially shallower depth of field than the 56. You'd have to have like a 56 f/0.8 or something on Fuji to match an 85 1.2 on FF. The 56 1.2 is equivalent to an 85 1.8, and those actually focus pretty fast. (The Nikon is a favorite of basketball and hockey photogs.)

That said, something about Fuji just really triggers autists, and they love to go out of their way to bash the brand. I don't think a lot of them can wrap their heads around the fact that we Fuji shooters are fully aware of our system's limitations and choose it despite them. I'm a former pro, a photojournalist no less, and it's the very quirks and limitations of Fuji that actually made me switch to the system - it gives me a bit of the same feeling I had when I was a beginning photographer with a film SLR.

>>2974707
But it is much closer to what you think of when you hear "kit lens" than the 18-55.

>>2974858
Yeh they do, only a bokeh fag would get a 1.2, they're soft, slow to focus and heavy.

And 2 - 4 seconds...

>>2974881
Out of interest, what kind of limitations specifically?

I wish I did what you do. Is it possible to get that gig without being an educated photojournalist? I imagine it's hard enough if you do have the education.

>>2974907
>limitations
No proper flash system
No full frame option or upgrade path
Poor AF performance
Doesn't work correctly with any of the leading software (adobe, phaseone, dxo)
No pro zooms
all lenses only cover crop image circle, so have no future
no third party suppliers of lenses or flashes
oem lenses are overpriced and underperform
can't go lower than iso 200, iso is not rated the same as it is for every other mfg
No resale value (x pro 1's going for under $300 already)
no ergonomics
no ibis
no good battery options except for the xt 1 and 2
no proper tele lenses
nothing wider than 16mm equivalent

Basically they're fancy toy cameras.

>>2975045
5 shekels have been added to your account

>>2975045
>No pro zooms
>no proper tele lenses

You just going to go on the internet and tell lies?

>nothing wider than 16mm equivalent

Guessing the 10-24mm or third party 8mm fisheye don't count, right?

File: wZpwP.jpg (55KB, 319x319px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 319x319px

>>2975045
>is a photojournalist
>lists these as limitations

you're not a photojournalist

>>2975048
no fisheyes don't count for anything

and the 10-24 will do 15mm, my bad, it's still 50% more than the 10mm voigtlander for FE mount.

Show me a pro zoom. It should be internally focusing, f2.8 equivalent aperture (f2.0 or brighter) and a minimum of 2.8X magnification.

>>2975049
who needs af, batttery, pro zooms, compatible files, ergonomics in pj...

Lol. faggit. Why you so salty about your purchase?

File: ffvscrop.png (356KB, 857x564px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 857x564px

>>2975045
>No proper flash system
ef x-500
>No full frame option or upgrade path
what about medium format?
>Poor AF performance
x-t2 on par with d500 in terms of AF
>Doesn't work correctly with any of the leading software (adobe, phaseone, dxo)
the only fuckup here is adobe
>No pro zooms
XF 50-140 f2.8???
>all lenses only cover crop image circle, so have no future
heres a future proof lens in pic related on the left.
>no third party suppliers of lenses or flashes
samyang, zeiss touit + adaptors for all other, nissin, metz
>oem lenses are overpriced and underperform
lol
>can't go lower than iso 200, iso is not rated the same as it is for every other mfg
what exactly is the problem here that would not make you take a nice noiseless picture?
>No resale value (x pro 1's going for under $300 already)
x-pro1 is 5 year old now.
>no ergonomics
literally perfect weight balance, button layout, menus, customization. if you got mammoth hands you can add in an extra grip too.
>no ibis
nope. Just like nikon and canon.
>no good battery options except for the xt 1 and 2
so there are then?
>no proper tele lenses
XF 100-400???? 90mm??? 55-200????
>nothing wider than 16mm equivalent
a 7mm undistorted crop does not exist no matter who is the manufacturer

>>2975053
the only ones salty are the incompetent gearfags coming to this thread to whine

>>2975052
>Show me a pro zoom. It should be internally focusing, f2.8 equivalent aperture (f2.0 or brighter) and a minimum of 2.8X magnification.
can you show me one for Aps-c Sony, Nikon, Canon or Pentax?

>>2975052
>f2.8 equivalent aperture (f2.0 or brighter)

Do you really think you need f2 on crop to match f2.8 on full frame?

>>2975071
>pro zoom
>crop

Here's your issue buddy

>>2975088
Yes, to counter the worse noise performance and reduced apparent bokeh

>>2975068
>efx500
$500 for a flash with no commander, lol.

>medium format
Nothing is compatible, that's a system change not an upgrade path

>xt2 is as good as d500
Kek, no, the d500 doesn't take 2 - 4 seconds to find focus.

>only fuck up is adobe
Dxo doesn't even open rafs buddy

>50-140 2.8
Would you call an f4 70-200 a pro zoom? Or high end consumer?

>pic related
>worlds best 35mm ff lens compared to an equivocally slower lens that doesn't cover ff
If you want to do a size comparison, look at the zeiss 35mm f2.8.

>samyang & adapters
Cheap asian shit and manual focus, What is this, 1972? Zeiss dropped out from the x mount.

>why would you want to go lower than 200
So i can extend my shutter by 2 stops at iso 50, giving much more creative freedom.

>is 5 years old
So is the 5d iii which still demands 2/3 of its original price 2nd hand

>perfect weight balance
Yeah, before you add any lens
>perfect button layout
Sorry, what, no, if they had 3 separate, non absolute dials I may be more tempted to agree.
>add extra grip
Only on the xt, the xp and xe are left up shit creek
>but canikon dont ibis
Oly, pentax and sony do, and anyone that's had it would be reluctant to give it up.
>super zooms and a short tele
No, 200mm f2.8 equivalent or longer primes, weather sealed, focus lock, vr, etc.
>7mm undistorted crop doesn't exist
What do you think the actual fl of the lens on your phone is? Or on any small sensor device

>>2975124
pentax user here

ibis is alright but not enough of a difference to matter

>>2975045
The good battery option is two regular batteries from Chinese Ali for around 20 eurobux.

AF is right snappy on the x-pro2.

Learn to standard lens, faggot.

Toy cameras are also cool except to gearfags.

>>2975124
Rarely do I see such cancerous gearfagging like this but, damn son, its like you cant sleep at night because fuji is aps-c.

>>2975049
I'm the photojournalist. (Ex-PJ, actually, as I said.) The post you replied to was some other asshole.

Anyway...
>>2974907
The main limitations, at least in my mind:

-It's a crop sensor, with all of APS-C's inherent disadvantages compared to FF. High ISO isn't great, ultrawide lenses are hard to make, and you can't get as shallow of depth of field when you want it.

-The flash system is very limited compared to Canikon and even Sony. I have it on good authority that TTL studio lights are coming in the next year or so, though.

-AF is noticeably slower than contemporary DSLRs. It's nowhere near as bad as some people make it out to be, though.

-Sub-optimal performance with Lightroom

-Their EVFs aren't quite at the point where they can compete with SLR OVFs.

The rest of the "issues" that other anon mentioned are either irrelevant or simply bullshit. The OE lenses are excellent and are cheap for their quality level. Ergonomics are great IMO, controls are simple and intuitive and are exactly where you'd want them to be.

I won't knock Fuji's choice of APS-C for even a second, though. The Fuji system is all about being, compact, light, and discrete, and designing it around a smaller sensor allows them to make everything smaller and lighter. It's a well-chosen compromise, and not comparable to other APS-C systems because Fuji's is the only one with a full line of lenses designed around the sensor.

Also, the constant insistence that APS-C aperture isn't equal to FF aperture is ridiculous. You still get exactly the same light gathering ability, the same shutter speed and ISO for a given aperture. All you lose is a stop worth of DoF, which is irrelevant if you're not constantly using bokeh as a crutch, and which can sometimes be an advantage when you need a wider DoF in low light.

>>2975418
>-Their EVFs aren't quite at the point where they can compete with SLR OVFs.
'ad a good giggle at this.
'ad a bloody good giggle at you in general.

After all this, the hilarious thing is that you're still a fucking digipleb. A digipleb complaining about EVF's when you're happy to shoot on a fucking digital sensor. 10/10 fucking bait, I almost took you seriously there.
I can certainly see why you're an ex photojournalist now ;^)

>>2975418
>Ergonomics are great IMO
This is why I grab the fuji on the way out the door 9/10 times
.
I don't get paid for my photos so convenience and comfort rank higher that ultimate possible image quality.

Something that is not comfortable or intuitive to use is not something I'm likely to want to use and is thus something I'm not going to use.

File: 1480444243161.jpg (68KB, 431x450px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 431x450px

>>2975124
So much of this griping is literally retarded, you're asking it to be like 3 different systems at once and then sarcastically trashing it when it doesn't fulfil stupid criteria. The 50-140 f2.8 is a great lens, sharp wide open. Same goes for the 55-200, 90mm, 60mm, 35 f2, 23mm f1.4 & 16mm. All great lenses. No shit it's APS-C so you lose a bit of equivalent aperture but the noise level is pretty great despite it so who gives a shit. The guy mentions tonnes of great features and all you can return is "Nuh uhhhh!!" Samyang 12mm, another great lens. Autofocus is a satisfactory sacrifice because of the CoC/DoF and brings a great price and image quality. With your iso comment i'm not sure if you're trolling but Fuji Iso 200 is more like iso 125, and they do it for increased dynamic range. You're not really loosing anything unless you shoot jpeg because given the raw data you can change the tonemapping. But I'm sure as a total pro who turns his nose up at an f4 70-200mm you already know that. X-t X-p and X-e can all have aftermarket grips, and if you don't like those there's also third party ones. You're saying so much literally spastic shit I hope these aren't your actual opinions

>>7mm undistorted crop doesn't exist
>What do you think the actual fl of the lens on your phone is? Or on any small sensor device

I mean come on dumbshit you can't actually think that was a clever thing to say in that context right?

>>2975608
>says I'm saying spastic shit
>doesn't actually refute any point i made

Good work dingdong.

>>2974683
>18-55 is the only junk lense Fuji make
The Fuji 18-55 is based af

>>2975496
kek what the fuck are you even talking about?

Digital sensors are superior to 35mm film in every way that actually matters. You're insane if you think that film is still relevant in photojournalism, outside of a few meme photogs who can do whatever the fuck they want because they have famous names.

EVFs, on the other hand, have lag, dynamic range issues, and usability problems in certain lighting conditions that get in the way of capturing photos properly, especially when dealing with moving subjects.

Also, I own and regularly shoot a Hasseblad 501C and a Nikon F2, and used to have a 4x5 monorail back in college. One of my first jobs in the industry was in the darkroom at a newspaper in film's dying days, and in a year or so there I probably souped more film than the rest of /p/ put together has in their lives. I know all too well what the realities of shooting film professionally are and have zero patience for hearing some millennial hipster faggot call digital "pleb."

>>2975124
>Would you call an f4 70-200 a pro zoom?

And here it is again. Do you people actually understand how aperture works? A 2.8 on crop is a 2.8. The only difference is in depth of field with equivalent focal length and framing. You still get exactly the same exposure, which is what actually matters if you're not jacking off to bokeh.

>>2975068
How is that sony lens so fucking huge?

>>2975931
HA!

Nice post m8, you may wanna try remembering that as nice as your little digipleb camera is for weddings, it's absolutely shit in all other field.
>35mm film
No-one mentioned small format film but you or even crop babby 6x6. I'm sure you have more shutter actuations than anyone on the fucking planet m8, it's easy to make a baseless claim on the internet. I'm pretty sure you're 90% likely to be Jason Lanier.

>>2976012
Holy shit, man, you're pushing way too hard with this ridiculous bait.

>>2975931
>evf lag
Sony evf lag = 20ms
Very good reaction times = 230ms
Your concerns aren't grounded in reality.

>dr issues
How is that relevant? Or true? You know there oled right, the best type of screen for colour accuracy and contrast, and you can set zebras for blown areas?

>usability problems in certain light
You mean you can see in the dark if you need to? Unlike superior ovfs, where you just take a guess at night. You ever see an ovf bro try and take photos at night? Shits hilarious. "did it focus, no, did it focus, no, did i expose correctly, no". I just look at the exposure i want and if it's too dark for focus lock (rare, ospdaf works much better in low light) i can still nail manual focus as quick as i can in bright daylight, thanks to a quick crank of the iso dial, focus magnification and focus peaking.

>2.8 is 2.8 on crop
Yeah but crop has about 1 stop worse low light performance and 2 stops less apparent bokeh, you need at least a stop faster lens to compensate, if you want to be comparable. Having creative options, both in regards to bokeh and low light can only be a positive thing.

>>2975994
It's no larger or heavier than any other ff 35mm f1.4 lens currently available.

>>2976258
I was specifically talking about Fuji's EVFs, because my previous post was specifically about the drawbacks of the X-system, not mirrorless in general. I know Sony's EVFs are better.

I've shot some action with my X-Pro2 and the lag is just perceptible enough that it causes trouble, especially with panning shots.

DR has been an issue once or twice in high-contrast scenes where the sensor is capable of capturing but the EVF isn't capable of displaying everything.

Certain light is more about very bright sunlight sometimes making the VF hard to see through, especially while wearing glasses, and slow framerates and noise as the camera ups gain to provide a clear EVF pictures in semi-dark conditions where I'd still be able to see fine through an OVF. There's a narrow range of conditions where I specifically switch to the "rangefinder-style" OVF because the EVF struggles. The EVF also goes crazy under certain kinds of artificial light, especially older fluorescents.

Also, a little-mentioned issue that afflicts all EVFs, because of the way the displays work, is that the VF blacks out in certain orientations when wearing polarized sunglasses. (With my glasses and camera it blacks out in horizontal but is fine in vertical, might be vice versa with other setups but it'll always happen.)

I see the logic in saying that crop sensors have worse low light performance, but it's a lot more muddled when you start comparing against models, pixel counts, and generations, and so I don't really count it as a major issue when comparing formats. I also feel that the current Fuji sensor's low light ability, coupled with a 2.8 lens, is more than adequate for any realistic situation where you'd be shooting handheld.

As for DoF, the coin flips both ways. I ran into many situations during my FF years where I found myself wishing that I could get more DoF at a given aperture instead of less.

>>2975418
Thanks for the answers, I'm this guy >>2974907.

I don't see any of those as limitations to my own purposes (mainly street shooting without scaring folks), and I do love the feel and image results of the Fuji, so I'm happy.

Did you quit as PJ because it's a hard business? It's something I want, but I'm thinking it's very difficult. Cheers.

>>2976280
Oh yeah, I forgot to reply to that part.

I mostly quit because the money sucks even when business is good. It was alright back when staff jobs were a thing, but the market got so competitive after the newspapers all dumped their shooters and the mags went under that clients can pay peanuts and still get experienced shooters.

I got too comfy in my staff job and didn't do enough networking or whatever, so when everything went to hell I found myself getting just enough photo work to keep me from having a day job, but not enough to really pay the bills, and as much as I enjoyed the work it wasn't worth moving back in with my parents forever.

I can't even guess how you'd get into the business nowadays, it's really hard to make it even if you're a veteran with connections. In the old days it was just about bothering editors enough that somebody decided to give you a shot, and then working your way up from the bottom rung (basic bitch darkroom or assistant work), but that bottom rung doesn't even exist anymore.

>>2976281
I see, man that's tough. Staff jobs disappearing that quickly is hard to prepare for. Of the graduates from the school of journalism where I live, only two thirds of them end up doing professional or semi-professional work. I'm beginning to think the best forward is to just get a job, and then work one's way up from different online platforms like blogs, videos, that kind of stuff, to get exposure.

Establishing yourself as a photo artist (whatever that means), seems even more impossible without the education though. Both galleries and newspapers are saturated with images and with people who want to make them, so being picked out of a crowd might be unlikely.

These are all just considerations, I'm not sure what's the best path if you want to try and "be" a photographer.

>>2976258
>Yeah but crop has about 1 stop worse low light performance and 2 stops less apparent bokeh, you need at least a stop faster lens to compensate, if you want to be comparable. Having creative options, both in regards to bokeh and low light can only be a positive thing.

This is false. There's not 1 stop in light performance and it's only one stop less apparent bokeh

>>2976307
I think what he means is that crop sensors tend to be about a stop behind FF sensors in LL performance, so he's factoring that into effective aperture.

Any x-t1 owners upgrade to the t2?

Worth it for you?

File: 1461006842423.jpg (56KB, 264x264px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 264x264px

>>2976686
>tfw really want xt series camera
>cant decide to save up for the xt-2 or to pick up an xt-1 and a really nice lens

fuck

>>2976307
>there's not 1 stop in light performance
Nah, there's more, that was being generous. 3200 iso ff looks like 800 iso crop when resized

>only one stop less apparent bokeh
Take a 35mm 2.8 on crop, and a 50mm f2 on ff and frame them the same. The 50mm has a fuck ton more bokeh, you have to take the smaller sensor AND different fl into consideration.

>>2976688
>a really nice lens
Good luck, they don't exist on fuji. 2nd hand a7ii and 28 f2, 35 2.8 or 55 1.8 will be a similar price and blow whatever fuji combo you were thinking of out of the water.

>>2976690
>Good luck, they don't exist on fuji. 2nd hand a7ii and 28 f2, 35 2.8 or 55 1.8 will be a similar price and blow whatever fuji combo you were thinking of out of the water.

Way out of my price range. For just the price of a used a7ii I could get an xt-1 plus either the 90mm f2 or the 16mm 1.4 which are both fantastic lenses

Personally I'd probably get the 14mm 2.8, 27mm pancake, and an xt-1 and just adapt a nifty fifty and an 85ish lens

I like the a7 but it's just too expensive for my purposes

>>2976690
You idiot... 35 mm 1.8-ish on crop will look pretty identical to 50mm 2.8 on FF. There are no magic properties to full frame, crop is the sam technology... Just cropped a bit out the edges.

Source: own both full frame, fuji and olympus m43. All serve their purpose.

File: IMG_0711.png (3MB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1536x2048px

>>2976690
If you're going to shit/shillpost at least be coherent:

Size is a factor of mp not sensor area

The lens comparison you're looking for is 35 f2 on crop vs 50 f2.8 on ff

If you can post a single photographic example of any of these claims I'll be amazed.

While we're waiting here's a shot of a Sony getting shat on by everything.

File: 1339767854112.png (152KB, 463x333px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 463x333px

>>2976694
>Sony's face when

fucking demolished

>>2976694

not him but you do realise that fuji cameras output RAWs with in body noise reduction right?
besides, compare it to the a7rii or a7sii if youre not convinced FF has inherent advantages.
youre also comparing mirorless to dslr.

File: Flowchart1.gif (9KB, 663x202px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 663x202px

>>2976709
incorrecto

imagine this without the bayer filter for fuji

File: Capsdasdadture.jpg (170KB, 1013x704px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1013x704px

>>2976712
are you fucking retarded or what?


>There are at least 3 reasons that you see less noise when viewing X-Trans raw files:

>1) Overstating of ISO. All manufacturers exaggerate the ISO rating, but Fuji cameras are 1/3-stop less sensitive at low ISO and 1 full-stop less sensitive at high ISO compared to other digital cameras. When you compare the low-light/noise performance of Fuji, it is best to compare Fuji ISO6400 to ISO3200 on the other camera.

>2) Demosaicing. The unique arrangement of the CFA requires a more complex algorithm to demosaic the raw data and generate an image. The results of the demosaic process can vary greatly and are completely dependent on which raw converter you use. Adobe's demosaic performs more filtering than other converters, so the resulting image has less noise and less detail than other converters. Photo Ninja performs less filtering during the demosaic process, so the resulting image has more noise and more detail than the same image converted in Adobe. You can't actually view a raw image, you are always viewing the results of the demosaic process. What appears to be less noise in the raw file is actually more filtering during the demosaic.

>3) High ISO manipulation. Fuji cameras don't actually use any ISO higher than 1600. Whenever you set your camera to ISO3200 or 6400, the camera will use ISO1600 and underexpose the image by 1 or 2 stops. The raw file will then be digitally gained to reach the intended brightness.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Comp
Image-Specific Properties:

>>2976732
What's the actual fuck are you babbling about?

What is normalised brightness?
What the fuck does this digression on different converters have to do with anything?

Point 3 is literal sperg - underexposing then brightening above 1600? You're conflating isoless with scene DR

File: 1417252109525.png (23KB, 255x255px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 255x255px

>>2976749
>posts a noise comparison
>HURR DURR SONYSHIT
>proven xtrans cheats iso and noise reduction in raws
>HURR DURR WHAT IS NORMALISED BRIGHTNESS


holy shit i swear it wasnt even this bad a few years ago. literally kill yourself you retarded brand-cuck and get off my board.

>>2976750
>literally punchdrunk

>>2976750
not him but
> it wasnt even this bad a few years ago
yes. we had way way less gearfags like you. the only one who should kys is you faggot

File: Untitled-1.jpg (667KB, 1168x1181px) Image search: [Google]

667KB, 1168x1181px

>>2976749
>further proof that fuji users are just fucking dumb.

>>2976694
Why have you gone through the effort of adjusting each image so they look wildly different?
Here's an actual set of images from that same website, much less variation in color than yours shows and Sony clearly retains the best color accuracy and contrast.

The bottom right shows the fuji with it's fake iso compensated for, as you can see, it looks like horse shit, even the base iso image is incredibly soft.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:03 18:01:49
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1168
Image Height	1181

>>2976788
Dang dude it took you nearly five hours to photoshop that?

>Why have you gone through the effort of adjusting each image so they look wildly different?

Ask yourself this question

>>2976795
anyone is welcome to go to the site and see for yourself

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_a7_ii&attr13_1=fujifilm_xpro2&attr13_2=nikon_d750&attr13_3=canon_eos5ds&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=12800&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&attr171_1=off&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=0.8587415781660385&y=0.18286298247586627

>>2976788
is correct tho.

>>2976801
Yeah exactly

>Why have you gone through the effort of adjusting each image so they look wildly different?

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_a7_ii&attr13_1=fujifilm_xpro2&attr13_2=nikon_d750&attr13_3=canon_eos5ds&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&attr171_1=off&normalization=print&widget=1&x=0.8608383307156895&y=0.20171099212604718

not different at all

>fuji iso means you have to multiply iso by 2x to mean the same as sony iso

Is this all you want to do with your life? Be on a mongolian beef roasting image board for the express purpose to spread misinformation and shitpost?

Literally kill yourself

>>2976788
Well done, you've made them look equally bad with some adroit goalpost recalibration.

>>2976802
>multiply iso by 2x
>she doesn't understand stops
>girls laughing.jpeg

>>2976803
>Showing how the images actually look, instead of fucking with each one first and pretending your dreams of fuji being acceptable and sony not being the best were true

>goalpost moving

k

>>2976806
>whenever fuji looks better it's an image that was tampered with
>pretending your dreams of fuji being acceptable and sony not being the best were true

Something tells me you hate fuji for reasons other than their cameras

>>2976806
Try changing the lighting from daylight to artificial, and removing the tinfoil helmet.

>>2976851
I think it makes more sense to keep them all on the normal, equal settings friendo.

I'm so fucking sick of this shit.

OK, first of all, I'm really impressed with Sony. In a decade they've gone from point & shoots to being one of the world's top three camera companies, a name that can be mentioned seriously in the same sentence as Nikon and Canon. Even more impressively, they've done it pretty much alone, as Zeiss is barely more than a sticker on their high-end lenses. That's very admirable.

However, comparing Sony and Fuji is simply ridiculous, because the only place the two brands actually compete (at least between FF Sony and Fuji's high-end line) is in forum spec sheet arguments. They're as different as a Nissan GTR and a Porsche 911, or as a 17" Thinkpad workstation is from a 13" MacBook Air. They're not direct competitors in any reasonable way, and any experienced photographer will very quickly figure out which brand suits them.

As a documentary photographer, Sony offers nothing that would have made me switch from Nikon to Sony. The differences in sharpness and sensor performance don't mean much to me, and I only would have saved a few ounces of weight, at the expense of moving to a system with an interface I don't like, a lens system that doesn't offer what I'm looking for, and a very high monetary cost. Fuji, on the other hand, gave me an interface I love, a unique and new way of shooting with the Hybrid VF, and most importantly, cut the size and weight of my bag in half while still giving me top-tier fast prime lenses.

With my 23 1.4, I have a lens that's an "equivalent stop" (hereon referred to as a "stop") slower than the Sony 35 1.4 but is half the cost and a fraction of the size and weight and a stop faster at similar size and weight and lower rebate price than the Sony 35 2.8. With my 56 1.2 I'm half a stop slower than the Sony 85 1.4 but again get it for half the cost and much less size and weight. That's what I switched for - a system that gave me 95% of the performance of my FF Nikon rig with 50% of the burden to carry around.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D610
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	802
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	35 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:17 21:35:03
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2977087
Except it's not a stop slower where it matters: exposure.

>>2977087
On top of those other things, I really like the way the Fuji sensor and lenses render images and find their color profiles very useful. They're very similar to the look I love from film and always strove to replicate with my Nikon images, and having them easily accessible with the Fuji has substantially sped up my workflow.

Now, all of this is only true for me and maybe a few other photographers like me. There are many people out there who fit the Sony much better. If absolute peak performance from your sensor and lenses matters more than other factors, by all means buy an A7. If you enjoy spending hours tweaking a single image to perfection and want the best possible data to do that with, Sony will be great. If you're that kind of photographer, you'll want to throw a Fuji in the trash after a week with it.

Oh, and if performance for action and sports matters, stop looking at mirrorless altogether and buy a Nikon or Canon.

One thing I really won't stand for, though, is this bullshit about Fuji not making good lenses. The X-system is universally acclaimed by everybody who knows what they're talking about and it's for a good reason. The only subpar lenses Fuji makes are their lowest-tier entry level kit lenses, and Sony's equivalents are no better. Fuji is one of the top optics manufactures in the world, an industry leader in everything from television cameras to medical imaging, and Hasselblad even dumped Zeiss in favor of Fuji. Zeiss themselves tried to make lenses for Fuji and failed because they were worse than Fuji's own glass and yet cost more. I think that says a lot.

>>2977088
Oh yeah, I'm well aware of that and have made the same point several times already. I'm putting it this way so that people can't bring up the whole "but APS-C sensors are slower and you get less bokeh" thing and to demonstrate that even under the least favorable terms to Fuji the system still holds its own.

>>2977089
>Zeiss themselves tried to make lenses for Fuji and failed because they were worse than Fuji's own glass and yet cost more.

Funnily enough, those Touit Zeiss (for fuji X and sony E apc mounts) were made by Fujinon anyway.

Zeiss don't make shit for consumers anymore, it's all cosina or Tamron or whatever branded Zeiss. Only "real" Zeiss left are things no one on this forum would ever buy, if any could actually afford them anyway (top end cine lenses, satellite imagining, medical etc., all 100k+++)

File: dscf5188-copy~2.jpg (1MB, 4193x1562px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4193x1562px

>>2977089
Good answer.

You're the first fujian to admit that It's a technically inferior system, does the inherent softness seen here >>2976788 even at iso 200 not concern you? Or the fact the rather pricey 35 1.4 can't hold its own against a $80 nifty fifty, pic related.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	X-T10
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh)
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	53 mm
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2016:09:27 08:00:12
Image Width	4193
Image Height	1562
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
F-Number	f/1.4
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Light Source	Unknown
Exposure Mode	Manual
Image Height	2399
Rendering	Normal
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Program	Manual
Sharpness	Normal
White Balance	Auto
Image Width	6441
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Brightness	4.0 EV
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Time	1/2000 sec

>>2977162
That wasn't your cue, bin boy.

>>2977206
>get out of here with your photographic evidence

>>2977211
Post raws or forever hold your peace

>>2977087
>>2977087
You could have picked far more lightweight FF E-mount lenses.

Or since you apparently had some qualms about cost, you could have picked even cheaper (and also more lightweight) APS-C E-mount lenses.

You chose not to for... reasons. Okay, but Sony is definitely still in direct competition and can be compared, plus it can be equipped ~equally lightweight no problem.

>>2977214
An a7rii on crop and zeiss touit still massively outperforms an xt2 and touit.

Bit embarrassing really considering the non existent weight and size difference.

>>2977212
What are you disputing?
Fujis fuck ugly bokeh?
Just reverse search that image for the article it came from.

>>2976788
You know, sometimes you get the benefit of seeing a post that's about as autistic as you and it makes you smile a little inside.

I don't even need to read the content of this post to get the benefit of it. Good job m8.

This seems like religion to some of you...

File: IMG_0720.jpg (662KB, 1792x1793px) Image search: [Google]

662KB, 1792x1793px

>>2977217
Good enough. Yes, the Zeiss renders oof specular highlights better, as well it fucking should, but outside of that iota of extra creaminess there's just not enough in it to warrant the deluge of hyperbole these discussions are prone to.

Here's a sample of something a tad more useful than bins and branches against a blown out sky. If people think that an a7 & 55 is worth the premium over the xt10 & 35 then more power to them, but it really looks like a marginal gain based on subjective preferences.

Zeiss crop

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1792
Image Height	1793
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: 26800418753_0059875acf_o.jpg (631KB, 1792x1792px) Image search: [Google]

631KB, 1792x1792px

>>2977260

Fuji crop

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-T10
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	53 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:06:01 20:12:21
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Brightness	4.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1792
Image Height	1792
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: 27373660166_71d33155d1_o.jpg (999KB, 2200x2202px) Image search: [Google]

999KB, 2200x2202px

>>2977262

Zeiss crop original size so you can see what the extra pixels get you

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	55 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:06:01 20:11:54
Exposure Time	1/320 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Brightness	5.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2200
Image Height	2202
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2977260

>maybe fake glasses will make me look smart

>>2977260
>>2977262
>>2977265
I see you cropped out the areas of the image that show fuji's very nervous bokeh.

Also, >>2977262 "Fuji Color", looks fucking disgusting, you know things are shit when an untouched sony raw looks massively nicer in the color department.

>aaand we're back to subjective judgements, and the rest.

t. Camera brand fanatics

>>2977266
It's a race to the bottom m8, don't get left behind

>>2977267
t. sony shill

>>2977162
Ayyyyy, it's time for the bin man to take out the trash.

Never stop posting this image. It's inspiring me to rethink my whole view on photography every time it's posted. I even went out one day and photographed some bins with a fuji and a Sony just to get that real life feel of photo-ing bins with a camera. People did look at me a bit weird as I set up me tripod though. They were just jealous of how I could spend my free time!!!

>>2977162

Maybe photography isn't for me. They all look fine.

>>2977331
Yeah, I'm still learning this shit.
What is the sonyfag saying?

I'm trying to follow the conversation but it's detoured into shit I don't get.

What's wrong with that image?

>>2977331
You're well ahead of the game then. Enjoy real photography, my son.

File: 199.jpg (146KB, 884x666px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 884x666px

This thread. This fucking thread. It started by a simple gearfag question which shouldve fucking went into the gear thread. Now cant even see a fucking end to when you fags are gonna stop this brand circlejerk. And theres those two (i think) full-frame babies who wont fucking shut the fuck up about their superior """"""""professional"""""""" format and their fucking absolute NEED to prove that Fuji is a shit amateur system. You are fucking disgusting. Hard to believe you would go more than 135 posts on a slow board like this just to try to prove some shit you believe in.
It wouldnt be that bad but this level of gearfagging is in numerous other threads as well. Fucking dpreview comparison posts, MTF charts, etc. HAHAHA MY CAMERA BUTTON LAYOUT IS BETTER THAN YOUR CAMERA BUTTON LAYOUT.
JUST FUCKING KILL YOURSELVES.
Literally end it.
Delete this board.
Go post in a fucking dpreview forum instead.
/p/ is fucking finished.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 7.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2011:12:11 22:49:36
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	884
Image Height	666

File: DSC_6022.jpg (324KB, 1000x668px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 1000x668px

>>2977161
Where'd you hear that? The only sources I can find say they were made by Cosina. And yeah, I know all about the difference between real Zeiss and the modern stuff, I own a real Zeiss myself. (Pic related.)

>>2977162
You'll find plenty of people who openly admit the compromises they've made with Fuji as soon as you get away from the ultra-gearfag sites. (/p/, DPR, etc.)

That "inherent softness" has never actually been an issue in any of my real photography. I'd never know it existed were it not for the constant hammering on about it on the internet.

As for that photo, I can't at all see where the Fuji is supposedly losing to the Canon. The Canon's rendering is flat, it has haze around the details on the point of focus (the trash bin), and transitional bokeh is distorted and unpleasant. I'd say that of those photos, the Zeiss 55 and Fuji 35 are pretty closely matched, and the other two are far behind. (The deciding factor for me is the separation between the brick wall and the background - it "pops" nicely with those two images, and that kind of "pop" is very useful in my real photography.)

Also, the 35 1.4 is well known as one of the weakest lenses in Fuji's lineup. Not surprising, since it was one of the first ever made for the system.

>>2977214
I chose that example because it compares directly with my own setup and because somebody above me suggested a used A7II and 35 2.8 as an alternative to a Fuji. A fast 35 prime is also a core lens for a huge proportion of photographers.

I explicitly avoided Sony APS-C because they only use that format for entry level and "prosumer" products. I'm comparing the two companies' high-end gear and nothing else. They're much more competitive at the low level, but I haven't owned an entry level camera in well over a decade.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D610
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	802
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	35 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:17 21:35:03
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2977502
>Not surprising, since it was one of the first ever made for the system

The 18/2 is sharper and it was one of the first as well

>>2977510
Yeah, that's true.

You know, this whole thing brings up a point that I think really highlights how much individual preference matters here.

I learned years ago that I hate 50mm. I traded my 24-70 in on a 35 1.4 after realizing that I only ever used it between 24 and 35, or at 70mm, and never in between. (And since I had a 20 2.8, a manual 85 1.4, and a 70-200, the only FL I was really getting from the 24-70 was 35mm.) I think the 50 is too tight for wider shots, like full-body portraits, and prefer the bit of perspective distortion the 35 gives me, it makes the photos more dynamic and immersive. It's also too wide for tight shots, like half or h&s portraits, and I prefer an 85's compression, which is generally more flattering to faces and just makes for better looking photos IMO.

So, the fact that Fuji's 50mm equivalent isn't very good is irrelevant to me, but that their 35 and 85 equivs are excellent is a huge deal. On the other hand, Sony has excellent 50mms, but their 35s are a choice between heavy and expensive or slow and overpriced, and their only 85 is heavy and expensive. Had I gone with an A7 kit, my two core lenses would have cost nearly $4000 instead of under $2000 and my bag would've been twice the size and weight.

OTOH, somebody who loves 50mm, or maybe somebody whose kit revolves around fixed-aperture zooms, would be served much better by Sony.

This is why I say the two systems don't really compete. For almost any experienced photographer who really understands their own needs, one system or the other is almost always the clear winner.

>>2977548
My favorite walkabout length is 40ish and if I had an a7 I'd probably end up adapting some 40mm but on fuji I can just grab the 27mm pancake and also have autofocus

I'd be happy with either and probably get nearly the same results

>>2977502
> I explicitly avoided Sony APS-C because they only use that format for entry level and "prosumer" products.
We should explicitly avoid Fuji's APS-C then because they then apparently are mostly (low?) entry level and rarely "prosumer"...

> I'm comparing the two companies' high-end gear and nothing else
You clearly must compare best FF body / best FF lens vs best APS-C body / APS-C lens only.

Even if you realize that you oddly specifically cut the performance (low light, sharpness & overall resolution) requirements exactly at the APS-C/APS-C side but mind the weight and cost of FF/FF.

> They're much more competitive at the low level
I don't feel that is the case. Everything up to the X-T1 can't even compare well to a A6000, and that's also fairly generous on the X-T1.

>>2977624
>We should explicitly avoid Fuji's APS-C then because they then apparently are mostly (low?) entry level and rarely "prosumer"...

That's not how it works, though. Sony makes APS-C cameras and lenses for the entry level market, and FF for the high end. Fuji makes APS-C for everything, and the X-Pro2, XT-2, and certain lenses for the high end. Fuji doesn't give an easy way to distinguish high-end from low-end stuff, but basically it's any lens with an aperture ring.

They're in the same price bracket as the A7II and many of its lenses and they're pitched to the same level of photographer.

>I don't feel that is the case. Everything up to the X-T1 can't even compare well to a A6000, and that's also fairly generous on the X-T1.

I'm not comparing the performance of those lines, just saying they're competing for the same buyers. Unlike the high end, where there are obvious "Fuji people" and "Sony people," at the low end there are a lot of people who might choose between both. A new photographer buying their first "real" camera is much more likely to cross-shop the XT-10 and A6x00 than somebody buying an A7II or an X-T2.

>>2977624
>>2977652
>You clearly must compare best FF body / best FF lens vs best APS-C body / APS-C lens only.

>Even if you realize that you oddly specifically cut the performance (low light, sharpness & overall resolution) requirements exactly at the APS-C/APS-C side but mind the weight and cost of FF/FF.

This is exactly where Fuji differs from every other current camera system. It's not fair to Sony to compare Sony APS-C to Fuji, because Sony's APS-C line is all at the lower end. They don't make high-end APS-C products. Fuji is unique because they have chosen to make "pro" APS-C equipment, where every other camera manufacturer designs their system for FF and only makes APS-C for the entry level and special purposes. (Like the D500, which is a specialty camera for sports and wildlife.)

I also never "cut the performance requirements." I said outright that it's a compromise and that individual photographers choose the camera system that suits their needs. I compromise on low light, sharpness, and resolution for the advantages of cost and weight. Other photographers might be the opposite. Not everybody has the same needs or can use the extra stuff that one system or another provides.

For me, the extra sharpness and resolution of Sony are worthless. I take photos to publish on the internet at relatively small sizes, I don't crop my photos much, and I shoot mostly in good light or with flash. I have all of the sharpness, high-ISO performance, and resolution that I need with Fuji.

I'm not telling anybody else to buy a Fuji system, and I'm not saying that Fuji is better than Sony. I'm simply saying that anybody who says that I was wrong to buy Fuji, wrong to like the system, and that Sony would have been a better choice is completely wrong.

Cameras are a tool. Arguing between Sony and Fuji is like comparing an angle grinder and a dremel.

>>2977550
a7 + sigma mc11 + ef 40mm f2.8

>>2977661
> It's not fair to Sony to compare Sony APS-C to Fuji, because Sony's APS-C line is all at the lower end.
Fuji's lineup (up to the third best camera) is mostly under the low end A6000 model of the Sony APS-C line.

And the two remaining (X-T2, X-Pro2) cameras aren't really easily matching the better Sony APS-C bodies either.

Generally speaking this nonsense holds no water. Fuji's cameras are not in the least "more professional".

> For me, the extra sharpness and resolution of Sony are worthless.
Yes, I understand that to you they are only valuable up to exactly the point where you somehow have reason to buy a higher-end Fuji with a fairly expensive lens, but not beyond it.

> I take photos to publish on the internet at relatively small sizes, I don't crop my photos much, and I shoot mostly in good light or with flash.
The terrible support for lighting under Fuji's TTL system also doesn't seem to matter.

Apparently have a situation where you could basically almost work with a smartphone camera and something as damn easy to do in post as applying a colour profiles is one of the bigger features.

But somehow need "top-tier" / "professional" body and lens for it.