Why does Fujifilm make such terrible cameras and lenses? I borrowed

>>3038335
Fuji don't aim they're products at photographers, they're for casual use and old fucks.

They actually actively discourage people that know what the fuck they're talking about from using them by refusing to put out algorithms for xtrans forcing people to use sooc jpegs and silkypix.

And their lenses, there's not a single one that you could refer to as "professional" quality.

It's just gimmicky retro hipster shit for people that don't know what the fuck they're doing.

File: bobby.jpg (76KB, 496x566px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 496x566px

>>3038340
Fair answer. I guess my assumption that it was for numales and girls with problem glasses was right. When I was shooting with it the camera felt like reddit: the camera.

>>3038335

Because Fuji is smart.

Their target market is soccer moms and GWC.

Most people can't tell the difference between a kit lens and a Canon L lens, so why put the effort? All they have to do is make it better than a cellphone, which is all it gets compared to.

So,they make a camers that looks cool, and has decent on paper specs.

Then they tack ridiculously wide aperture numbers on their lenses, even shen they perform like shit until stepoed down.

To the average user, their 56mm f 1.2 outperforms every other 50mm because it is 1.2. Ethey don't realize it performs terribly until stepped down to f 8.

>>3038340
>And their lenses, there's not a single one that you could refer to as "professional" quality.

Ok, I give you the other points but I refuse to think you aren't trolling if you seriously think this is true about Fujinon.

>>3038394
show me a pro lens

>>3038396
the 90mm f2 is not?
the 56 f1.2 isn't either?

Up until now I didn't notice that these lenses are not even reviewed by dxo. Suspicious already. Is that because the xtrans raws don't work in their tests or something?

>>3038398
according to these sources it doesn't suck though, so I don't get what you're on about. especially what you mean by a lens being "pro"

the canon 50 1.2 is certainly pro, yet it's soft as fuck wide open


http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/fujinon/xf-56mm-f1.2-r/review/

http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x/871-fuji56f12?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x/907-fuji56f12apd?start=2

>>3038398
>Is that because the xtrans raws don't work in their tests or something

Do you think xtrans really interferes with shooting a test chart? Do you think it's beyond DXO's scope to make it work?

Obviously not, this is an agreement between fuji and dxo.

>is the 56mm f1.2 a "pro" lens

Put it side by side with canikon/sony's 85mm f1.4, from the ground up it's a rich old dudes lens, not a pro lens.

WHY DO PEOPLE SERIOUSLY REPLY TO THIS B8 LIKE WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU HOLY SHIT

>>3038398
>Is that because the xtrans raws don't work in their tests or something?

Why would you think this matters?

And even if it did, not every x-mount body is x-trans.

>>3038335
>I borrowed my sister's new X-T2 and a few primes and every picture is a chromatic abomonation, has shit for brains rendering, and terrible ISO performance.

Have you considered that maybe you are a shit photographer?

>>3038411
This thread in one image.

File: FUJIFILM.png (990KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

990KB, 1280x720px

>>3038402
t. fujicuck

>>3038401
Put the sigma 85mm art side by side with those and it blows them out of the water. Your point?

>>3038345
>felt like reddit: the camera.
jesus christ I hate the "reddit" buzzword
it was funny years ago now it's just stale "le reddit lmao" rageface-tier shit

>>3038401
>this is an agreement between fuji and dxo.

[Citation needed]

>>3038421

Except in this case. Here it applies. Go say something negative on /r/photography about Fuji. You'll get torn apart by all of the GWC's and numales.

>>3038437
Wow, I guess Reddit is right about something for once.

>>3038467

kek, they think Fuji shit compares to the Sony A7 line. So no, they're not right.

Fuji has the most pleasant rendering from all digital cameras I've seen. I've been using film and trying to switch to digital because of the convenience but kept going to film because I just didn't like the harsh look of the images until I got a Fuji and been using it ever since.

>>3038437
it's the same for any brand. I once played the "micro four thirds is over" meme there and got nothing but downvotes. There's a lot more people there so statistically, there will be a few brandfags of every kind.

>>3038437
>the best camera is the one you carry
>t. redditcuck with some obscure japanese garbage he found in a thrift store

/r/photography is like having a lobotomy.

>>3038480
Right fucking with you.

Spent years shooting film, and not bothering with digital - for the very same reasons. Images are processed with such generic and harsh - and generally shit.

Fuji just does it right. Also the shooting experience is incredible and it's such a fun camera to use and travel with.

Cheers to you Fujibro.

>>3038480
>>3038509

WTF is a "harsh" look? Would like to see some examples.

>>3038511
I think they mean "sterile" or "clinical", which may be a valid critique of digital photography depending where you sit. Many like their gear to have character beyond pixel-perfection, which the post-gearfagging photographer recognizes as unattainable; and film has character aplenty.

Not sure where Fuji's comes in though. The JPEGs are nice, but RAF editing is about the same as NEF editing, only way slower because Darktable a shit.

>>3038511

Not him, but: Orange skin, garish greens, over saturated blues. Sonikanon all share this characteristic.

>>3038517
>>3038518
This is bait or you are retarded.

That comes from shit lenses with poor contrast characteristics. AKA the kit lenses and maybe cheap shit primes everyone and their mother on reddit has. Kindly eat shit and die.

>>3038523

But we aren't shooting Sony.

File: 32579974354_ec69fdcb7e_c.jpg (281KB, 800x439px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 800x439px

>>3038511
Just the most generic pleb-level colour grading imagining. Like any shit-chucking ape accepts and just is happy with mediocre colours.


https://www.flickr.com/photos/-lucie-/32579541334/sizes/z/


Vs. pic related

>>3038523
>That comes from shit lenses with poor contrast characteristics

Lol look at this assblasted sonygger, sorry bro those features are exclusive to sonikon

File: 20130320_0162-0166.jpg (61KB, 600x222px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 600x222px

>>3038518
If only you could change all that, huh?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 50D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
Photographer	Douglas J. Klostermann
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi
Image Created	2013:04:04 12:56:33
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	0.42 m
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	600
Image Height	222
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3038528

>bad post processing

Fujifags need to realize that some of us can actually edit our photos well and don't have to rely on out of the camera jpegs. Anything you can do with a Fuji can be done with a Sony/Nikon/Canon, but not vice versa. Deal with it.

>>3038528
>Set picture control to vivid.
>Increase sharpening and saturation.
>Decrease contrast.

Or just shoot raw and do all that in post.

wow, such difficult.

>>3038536

You would think, and yet here we are 15 years later and it's still impossible to wrangle good colors out of them.

I say this as a dyed-in-the-wool Nikon shooter who has close to 120,000 .nef files floating around on his hard drive.

You would also know how laughably shallow Nikon's picture control menu is compared to the extremely granular controls Fuji gives you if you actually bothered to try new things instead of getting your feelings hurt.

>>3038420
>sigma 85mm art
Which isn't available in x-mount
My point stands, fuji has no pro lenses.

>>3038539
>how laughably shallow Nikon's picture control menu is

You could always upload a custom profile.

Fuji users actually think their cameras are closer to Sony FE than they are m43.

That's some delusion.

>>3038542
Sony has no pro lenses. Nikon has no pro lenses. Canon has no pro lenses. All of this is just as true.

>>3038551

Except it's not. Sony, Nikon, and Canon have pro grade lenses (in build and quality). Fuji does not. It's a toy camera.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>3038544

Oh, I used to. I didn't like that you could only use a basic luminance curve and not individual r g b channel curves.

Ultimately I just end up using Custom Lightroom presets to get to where I want them to be. I do the same for Fuji, of course, but I can also get pretty marvelous jpegs sooc and you can't do that with any other system.

>>3038552
You're stupid, huh.

>>3038569
>make garbage cameras
>have shills defend them for some reason
>camera is literally garbage both on paper and compared to even olympus which is absolute dogshit and pretty much just point and shoot

>>3038567

Good rebuttal. Go ahead and list Fuji's pro lenses.

I'll wait.

>>3038638
the 1.8 lens that is welded on and unremovable :^)

>>3038580
??????

>>3038702
5 Yen have been deposited into your account. Thank you for supporting Fujifilm Holdings Coproration®.

File: fujinon.jpg (102KB, 967x452px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 967x452px

>>3038638
Not him but pic related looks a bit pro. Fuji have been doing glass for a long time. Sony produces consumer electronics (playstation, walkman and toasters).

What does pro even mean? A precision engineered product with high mechanical tolerance? or a disposable accessory that may or may not be replaced when it breaks.

I've put my money in Nikon/Fuji

>>3038685

kek

File: fujinon 25 x150 ed sx.jpg (111KB, 701x401px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 701x401px

>>3038711
Also

>>3038711

Yeah bruh, we're not talking about Fujinon lenses. We're talking about their X-mount Fujifilm shit.

>>3038713

Why not just throw in the Sony F65 lens for a cool $75k?

>>3038716
X mount lenses are developed by the same team doofus. It's still a relativley small firm.

>>3038718
It's about time they shrink down to zero and fuck off.

>>3038718

Not even the same mount, kiddo, so completely irrelevant.

>>3038717
Nah, Sony smells of wee wee. Their high end gear is 100% out sourced. I'd rather deal with a company I can communicate with rather than conglomerative entity out to get my money by fair means or foul.

>>3038729
Mount is irrelevant.

File: ash.jpg (46KB, 320x435px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 320x435px

Whenever I see someone shilling for Fuji this meme comes to mind

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: sony shill.jpg (210KB, 800x642px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 800x642px

>>3038734
>Whenever I see someone shilling for Sony this meme comes to mind

>>3038704
kek

>>3038335
it's not the camera or the lenses. those are fine. X-Trans is a POS though.

>>3038740

omg just LOOK at those colors, this has OBVIOUSLY been shot on a SUPERIOR SONY CAMERA! And what an AMAZING shot, obviously REAL PHOTOGRAPHERS SHOOT SONY!!!

FUJI KEKS BANNED THE FUCK OUT LOLOLOLOL

>muh manly alpha bodies
>muh G MASTER lenses
>muh EXCEPTIONAL BUILD QUALITY, RELIABILITY AND ERGONOMICS

SONY 4 LIFE

>fujicucks say Sony has no lenses
>fujicuck lens is welded onto the body

Hmmm.... really makes you think

>>3038780

>being this jealous of my big, strong full frame

>>3038780

If you want to see some fine examples of Fuji in action, go to the recent photo threads here on /p/.

Game. Set. Match.

>>3038787
MUH dumpsters MUH cats MUH chromatic abomination MUH missed focus even at f5.6

Fujicucks are a plague on the recent photo thread.

>>3038733
How is it so?

>>3038789

>Fuji thread
people post pictures
>Sony thread
no pictures just autists screeching about specifications

>>3038793

>>Fuji thread
>people post pictures

Have you been to the fuji thread?

It is mostly people talking about how shitty some of the x-mount lenses are.

The only pictures in it are a handful of some dudes headshots where he claims the excessive smoothing and fucked colors done to .jpegs is better than anything any other camera can produce.

>>3038811
isi shoots fuji, and posts the most photos on the board

>>3038811

>reads one thread
>all Fuji threads must be the same

Shill somewhere else faggot

>>3038818

>fuji self defense out in force

>>3038730
You mean everyone but canon outsource from Sony ;)

>>3038818
Every fuji thread is like that

Will a Fuji ever take a good picture?

Will Fujifags ever be off suicide watch? How will they ever recover? Can they even recover? Is there any possibility of a comeback after being so thoroughly blown the fuck out, or are they bankrupt and finished?

>>3039178
Confirmed this is just an elaborate projection. Replace the word Fuji with Moop and it makes much more sense.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7ECB90D96DF59DE5

>>3038740
That is one of the most redneck things I've ever seen.

File: b739df3302c19ed0ad4fe26c54aca290.jpg (238KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1000x665px

>>3039438

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY CORP
Camera Model	Sony A7R
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.4 (Macintosh)
Photographer	Jason Lanier
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.1
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	772
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	45 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	100 dpi
Vertical Resolution	100 dpi
Image Created	2014:12:19 11:14:01
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/6.3
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	320
Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Exposure Bias	-2.7 EV
Subject Distance	3.98 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Return Not Detected
Focal Length	45.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3039754
What the fuck is this garbage

>>3039754
>a7r
>lightroom 4

Lightroom 4 had no Sony raw support.

He is shooting jpegs.

>>3039782
I wish shooting JPEG were the only flaw of that picture.
>That tilted horizon
>That horrible composition
>HDR shit
>Over imposing a logo two times

>>3039782
>Lightroom 4 had no Sony raw support.

>actually believing this

How's that 6th grade education working out for you, anon?

File: Capture.jpg (33KB, 641x157px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 641x157px

>>3039843

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	JimHess64
Image-Specific Properties:

>>3039852

So they didn't have specific profiles for Sony in 4. Doesn't mean you can't edit a RAW image. Olympus still doesn't have LR profiles.

XT2 user here. I'm also a professional wedding photographer. I have used every other professional system historically, Canon 1D series, Nikon D4/4s. Last year I decided that mirrorless is the way forward. I tried the A7 system and quickly found that while the image quality is commendable, there is no other reason for a professional to buy into this system. Garbage build quality that sees bits falling off, autofocus is molasses, piss poor support. Literally a cheap alternative to MF for poorfags. Now I shoot Fuji and couldn't be happier, the XT2 is the most versatile camera ever made. Picking up a GFX next week.

File: 1.jpg (308KB, 1200x898px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 1200x898px

shit thread for shit people

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>3039894

Post your work or fuck off with your made up stories.

>>3039884

No, they were unopenable.

A quick google search shows bunchs of results of people asking why they can't open them in outdated versions.

At least it is supported now unlike Fuji which STILL lacks proper x-trans support.

>>3039894

2/10 Went a little far with the Sony bashing. Drop that and it would be a little more believable.

File: i-rQGwPLz-L[1].jpg (101KB, 450x600px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 450x600px

>>3039915
>he doesn't use irident for fuji

it's like taking off a layer of vaseline from the lens

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	1 dp
Vertical Resolution	1 dp
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>3039915
Isn't it normal for Lightroom to only support a new camera model after a version update?

I think apart from shooting JPEG it's usually also possible to convert to TIFF or DNG using the supplied software though.

>>3039937

is it out for windows yet?

>>3040001

Use Iridient X-Transformer. Converts a Fuji raf file to lightroom. The quality is identical to the full Iridient software.

>>3039907
Yeah okay, like I'm going to expose the work that I produce for clients to some autists on the internet who will probably try and derail me in a jealous sony-fueled rage.

There is literally no reason to get a Sony. The XT2 does better video than the A7SII and the Pentax 645d is a better camera than the A7rII any day. The old A7r would be an attractive camera for light landscape at its pricepoint, if the shutter shock issue was sorted out, but Sony hate their customers so much they won't release electronic first curtain update for it.

>>3040074
holy fuck thanks for this

>>3040077
Amen to that, don't give into the autists - because they'll shit on your photos regardless how good or bad they are.

Fuji is excellent, I don't think I've a single a bad thing to say about them - the shooting experience is brilliant and so is the build quality of the bodies and lenses.

I don't really get the frothing at the mouth from the sonyggers, it's embarrassing to say the least.

>>3038335
crock of shit, i bet that camera is a great piece of equipment, the 'modern artist" definitely made this thread.

for ref https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbaYL_1Kk5g

any camera equipment made from (and I'm ball parking the fuck out of this number,) 2012, and on has the ability to make
decent photographs. you just can't be and incompetent fuck and you have to learn photography first to get good.

this guy eventually turned his whole youtube audience to buy the xt2 and he didn't want that in fear of people being able to maybe
take photos as good as him because his work could be mediocre but I'm not one to judge his work, only his blatant pussyness

>>3039896
>that many terrible fuji bodies and lenses
People like this should be chemically castrated.

>>3040500
Sucks to be poor huh?

I'm not going to read this dumb thread, I just wanted to LOL really hard at the OP thinking that the Sony crop kit lens is better than Fuji's kit lens.