EricM

How does a dng open in Nikon software? It doesn't. Your nef currently opens in more software than a dng. This wont change. I'd research and re-think this. Even Adobe suggests not to throw out your original raws after converting. If you're taking 100,000 images a year like some do here, this is unreasonable in both time and hard drive space. Yes, unnecessary. In the grand scheme of things today, DNG is small obscure file format that hardly anyone bothers with. Most of the seasoned pros and veterans have stopped with added step of conversion and almost all of the "new" photographers that have swelled onto the scene lately haven't even heard of dng. It's just some little box they leave un checked on their $9/mnth Lr subscription.

Bokeh is an attribute of the lens, not sensor. I'm not sure what this " "greater leap in the "look" of full-frame versus APS" is, either. The biggest complaint most have over aps-c is the change in depth of field for the same field of view. I shot 4x5 film, 2-1/4, 35mm, and when the dslr came out, I shot DX. I could care less about depth of field and related f stops. For me, the most concerning factor about aps-c is the DR and high iso performance. This used to be because of how many photosites are crammed into a given area and aps-c was often a terrible performer over 800iso. Not so today with some Sony and Fuji cameras. The latest Adobe ACR version sure has improved with it's treatment of xtrans sensors as well. Yes, some full-frame cameras may beat some aps-c cameras. My D810 walks all over my Sony RX100, for instance. But my D3s sure gets spanked by my Fuji x-t2. Apples and oranges.

Most welcome, Marc. How did you make out, did you get anything?

You're very welcome, uhooru

Every time I hear this, I'm reminded of that hilarious Zack Arias "crop vs. crap" video

That would indicate it's a poorly made site. Visit the forums on Fstoppers or Petapixel or DPreview...no instructions or stickies needed. The old Pn was..old. It was convoluted, buggy, and confusing. And visually, it looked as dated as a 1976 Ford Pinto. Pn was not only failing at getting new community members, but worse, people were leaving. Its just growing pains with something new and unfamiliar. I'm going to give it a shot

You're joking, right? Simple? The old Pn was the worst for people to understand and prevented new users. And it was even worse on mobile.

Mature, for me, means it will be at the Olympics, NBA, and race tracks. If it is not, it is therefore still in its infancy. Or adolescence.

Ditto the DAM book. It's the bible. There's also a similar Lightroom thread here on Pn with info and links https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/latest-lightroom-learning-sources.514247/ I like this new layout at Photo.net

It's easy for a savant to parrot words back into internet forums all day long. It's much more difficult to have a portfolio of photos from actually using it. Can we see yours?

:)

It seems that paragraph breaks are not reconized either :)

How do you put words in quotes, so you can respond to them? Three lines of text for the input box is inadequate as one click on scroll wheel of the mouse and my message disappears I like that when we go submit/more options/preview, it's nicely done and we actaully get a decent size for the input box. But a bug is that when you wish to edit, you can't use the mouse scroll wheel to see your post, you have to use the down arrow on keyboard to reveal your body of text. I'm on Windows and Chrome Thanks Glen, I like it so far.

Illka, "certain values"? I see that the x-t2 leads the D5 in DR in ALL values up to roughly 1200 iso. The x-t2 then slightly falls behind the D5 until we get to 32180 iso where the x-t2 once again surpasses the D5. For 1/3 of the iso range, a range most owners rarely use, the D5 has slightly better DR. For the remaining 2/3's, the D5 has worse DR than the x-t2. That's incredible for aps-c against a Nikon flagship and is far from certain values. Here is the chart we are qualifying our posts with: http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Fujifilm%20X-T2,Nikon%20D5 I made newbie mistakes when I first started using the x-t2 and wasn't getting the optimal results that I am now. How fortunate for the internet that I didn't report those findings in the comment sections and then have others take them at face value. Setting the x-t2 up and using the AF can take a bit of a time. The AF performance also greatly depends on grip, boost mode, lens, and if FW is updated. My Fuji primes are slow yet my 10-24, 16-55 and 50-140 zooms are blazing fast. I've pegged "The Angry Photographer" as the Ken Rockwell of Youtube but he has valuable info and has saved me a ton of trial and error time setting up the AF. The only Nikon I know of that is better than the X-t2 is the D5/D500. Maybe the D750, but I have no experience with that camera. I'm not sure why you are using the shortcomings of the X100s (x trans II) to try and knock down the x-t2 (x trans III)? The infamous smudged greens and waxy skin hasn't shown up for me on the x-t2. A little bit of research would show the new x trans III has greatly improved results over that x100s sensor.

<p>Ilkka, in that Petapixel link, those are the worst pictures I've seen come out of any camera in a long time. I'd take that article with a huge grain of salt.</p> <blockquote> <p>While the D5 has indeed relatively modest base ISO DR, the XT2 exceeds it at only ISO 100 and 200 (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm)</p> </blockquote> <p><br />Great link, Ilkka. But not so quick. When I enter the camera bodies on the right hand panel, my results are entirely different. My chart shows the x-t2 has greater DR over the D5 up until 1200iso, not 200. The x-t2 then drops slightly behind the D5 for a bit, but when we get to 32180 iso, the x-t2 once again surpasses the D5 and has greater DR. Do we not see the same results? I then select the D300. It's not news, but the D300 at one point has higher DR than the D5.</p> <blockquote> <p><br /> <br /> <br />I tried the X-T2 actually. The EVF is nice, for an EVF, and AF seemed to work decently in the store lighting but when I tried autofocus in high speed bursts, the focus was all over the place and nothing seemed to come out quite right. Perhaps it just doesn't cope with low light situations well, or I wasn't using optimal settings for the situation. If Eric has some comparison image sets or data with the D5 and XT2, with approaching people in indoor lighting with lens wide open, I would like to see that because to me it seemed like it wasn't working well for that kind of a situation.</p> </blockquote> <p>Our time is best spent with you exploring the internet as it is filled with accolades over the auto focus on the X-T2. You could take note of some optimal settings and return to the store and try it again and see what all the fuss is about because yes, your unsatisfactory experience suggests you weren't using it right. </p> <blockquote> <p>Wow! What a compliment to the XT-2 to be aligned in the same league as the D5! </p> </blockquote> <p> <br> I know. I still have a hard time believing it myself, Don. It was less than a year ago a colleague suggested I try a used x-t1 off of Craigslist to get my feet wet. It was a new world to me and seems like I was the last to know that Fuji is leading the market in optics and image stabilization. I can't believe how soft my 24-70 and 70-200 Nikons are compared to the Fuji equivalents. And they're half the cost. </p>