steve_solomon2

<p>You're quite welcome sir. As for improving flash output, I haven't measured that, but my hunch is you're correct. I only noticed that the VARTA's resolved the issue where the flash occassionally <em>partially exposed</em> the frame. Once the flash is permitted to fully recharge though, I would <em>think</em> that any AA brand would work, i.e., provide the same power output (assuming no problems with the flash unit itself). </p>

<p>Hi Mervyn.<br> I had the exact same issue, until Iswitched batteries to VARTA High Energy AA's. Probelm solved! (I'm no electrical engineer, but I think the issue is that generic AA's don't have enough power to recycle the flash properly.) Good luck sir! </p>

Hi Don. I agree with your comments, and empathize with your dilemma, but as I am a happy Fuji X-System convert, and an XT-1 user (with vertical grip and some superb Fujinon glass), I can definitely say that the current XT-1 (with current firmware) is a phenomenal camera, and IMHO, would serve you well. I would consider getting the XT-1 at a good price, with some excellent Fuji lenses, and then, once the XT-2 is released, tested, and potential issues resolved, as Fuji is so good at doing), only then consider the XT-2, and use the XT-1 as a second body. I can also vouch for the sharpness, detail rendition and handling of the Fujinon 35 f/2 WR, 60 f/2.4 Macro, and the awesome 16-55 f/2.8 WR zoom! Please check out sample images on my site, and feel free to contact me for more specific info. Good luck sir!

Hi L.M. Yes, you are correct, however, "ultra-wide" is a descriptive term that can indeed apply to this 8mm "Fish-eye" lens, because the focal length (8mm) is smaller/shorter than the short side (15mm) of the dimensions of an APS-C sensor. In any case, it's damn wide! ;-) I also agree with your assessment of its image quality...it seems quite sharp around f/3.5 to f11, though I'm not sure its sharpness equals that of FujiFilm XF lenses, realizing of course that Fuji doesn't make an exact 8mm equivalent. I do find the Focus ring a bit on the "tight" side, but that's a minor point with this otherwise well-built lens. More testing is anticipated on my end, including using some "de-fishing" techniques in post. Thanks, and have fun with its 180 degree angle of view!

<p>Congratulations Bob! I think you'll find your Fujifilm X-System capable of amazing image quality, sharpness, detail, and of course, the "color palette" that Fuji is known for. Regarding the missing SilkyPix CD, don't worry about it! There are several MUCH better options for processing your Raw and jpeg files. I use Affinity and Lightroom on my iMac, and this article gives a good comparison of converter apps: http://www.fujivsfuji.com/best-xtrans-raw-converter/<br> Best of luck, sir!</p>

Excellent suggestion, Christopher, thank you! And yes, I did just receive this lens last weekend, and am quite anxious to test it on an XT-1. Frankly, I'd be quite pleasantly surprised if the sharpness is even in the same ballpark as that from the superb Fujinon lenses. Thanks again sir!

<p>Bob, well, perhaps I'm not the best one to ask about bokeh, since I'm a landscape and product photographer, and I generally strive for maximum sharpness and depth of field. That said, the few images I've shot at wider apertures seem pleasing "to me", with regard to out-of-focus areas, but I realize this is all subjective. In terms of overall sharpness however, that I can talk about...and this lens is stunning, and IMHO, worth the "extra' weight! (Plus, most of my images are shot on a tripod anyway, so I'm generally not carrying that kit on my shoulder. Have fun! </p>

<p>Greetings, fellow photographers! <br> As a Fuji X-System user, I am totally pleased with the build, ergonomics, and of course, image quality I'm seeing from the XT-1 and the superb Fujinon optics! I recently came across some good reviews of the Rokinon 8mm f/2.8 Ultra-Wide II Fish-eye lens, and was wondering if anyone had used it on an XT-1, and what their general impressions were. Obviously, one of the main "draws" is the price (under $300), and that it's supposedly quite sharp and well-built. I wonder if it's the equal of the Fujinon 10-24 in terms of sharpness. (I've always been an "OEM" guy in terms of lenses, so totally unaccustomed to even considering a third part optic like this Rokinon.) Thank you. </p>

<p>Mervyn, you certainly have a nice collection of lenses! Regarding your comment about Nikon lenses being "technically better performers", I frankly find the opposite...my Fujinon lenses are stellar performers, both in image and build quality, and the detail and clarity of the images I'm getting from this X-System is the best I've seen thus far. I've been able to print to 20x34 while maintaining superb color fidelity, detail and sharpness! This, from the XT-1's 16 MB sensor. That said, I am anxiously awaiting an eventual XT-2, with the updated sensor and engine of the X-Pro 2. I can only imagine what improvements in image quality I'll see with that camera, combined with the stellar Fujinon XF lenses! Thank you. </p>

<p>Bob, that sounds like an awesome choice! As for your lens selection to start...great choice as well! I have the 60 Macro, 16-55, and the 35 f/2 (after a brief period with the also superb 35 f/1.4), and frankly, they are absolutely superb in terms of build quality and most importantly, image quality! The 16-55 f/2.8 WR Zoom, while a bit heavy for a mirrorless system lens, is still smaller and lighter than its' DSLR counterparts, and the image quality is virtually like that of a prime lens! In fact, as I've said before, I've used numerous DSLR and large format systems over my 35+ years in photography, and am quite pleased to find that with the Fuji X-System, sharpness enhancement in post is really "optional"! This, coming from an admitted "Sharpness Fanatic"! If you have any specific XF lens questions, please feel free to also contact me via my site. Thank you, and best of luck with your new Fujifilm X-System, sir! </p>

Craig, yes, I agree that the Fuji X-System, while lacking a "Pro" level flash, is an Awesome, high-quality photographic system! One could also argue that because of the good high-ISO performance of the X-Trans sensor, that flash is rarely "required" for a good exposure, though I realize there are many creative uses and scenarios in which a flash would be useful! That said, I've found that the Nissin i40 electronic flash is an excellent companion to my XT-1. Of course, it's not in the same league as Nikon's or Canon's high-end units, but it's quite versatile nonetheless. As for the new X-Pro 2, while it's a superb rangefinder-style camera, I personally love the ergonomics (and of course, the superb image quality!) of my XT-1, and look forward to testing and reviews of the eventual XT-2 upgrade.

Eric, I am also under the same impression that Bob is; namely, that the structure of the Fuji X-Trans sensor is quite different than the Bayer sensor, thus making the occurrence of moire possible, but extremely rare. (So said a Fuji rep at a trade show I attended in Texas last year.) I've not seen it in my landscape, architecture and product images, but then again, I don't often shoot fabrics. In terms of absolute sharpness and clarity though, I can state that I've been extremely pleased with the output of the Fuji XT-1 and their superb XF lenses! As said earlier, I've made poster prints that are quite nice. (For example, please see my previous post's attached Mt. Hood image.) Thank you.

<p>Hi Bob.<br> As one who switched from DSLRs (Nikon, Pentax) to mirrorless, and the excellent Fujifilm X-system in particular, I can say without hesitation that it was a fantastic choice! I regularly print posters, and have successfully printed my Fuji 16 MB files to 24x30 inches, and the overall image quality, sharpness, and detail retention is stellar! If there is a discernible difference between it and my "old" 24 MB Nikon D5300 images,I don't se it, and indeed, the Fuji enlargements appears sharper and clean, possibly due to the superb Fujinon lenses, and always using a solid tripod for maximum sharpness, along with good exposure and post technique. Perhaps you can, as I did with my Nikon kit, take your Canon DSLR to a camera store, and shoot the same exact image with both kits and compare images at home. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised with the overall image quality and detail captured by the Fuji X-System. Good luck sir! </p><div></div>

Hi Dave. As a former longtime DSLR user (Nikon, Pentax) turned mirrorless last year, I can say the following: IMHO, the image quality (in good light-natural or artificial), my Fujifilm X-system gets better image quality than my previous DSLR kits! Now, obviously the answer to your question can only be based on one's personal experience in each system combined with one's shooting style, technique, and image quality expectations. For travel, mirrorless systems are superior in terms of weight reduction, size, and overall portability. But as a landscape and small product stock photographer, I have found that the overall build quality, robustness (weather sealing) and most importantly (to me), image quality, the Fujifilm XT-1, and superb Fujinon XF lenses, meet my needs. And unless print wall-size, the 16 megapixel X-Trans sensor of the XT-1 is quite capable of stunningly sharp and detailed poster prints to approximately 30x40 inches. (Plus, I'm reading about Fujifilm's new X-Pro 2, with a new 24 megapixel sensor and processing engine, that, when combined with Fujinon's exemplary lenses, should raise the bar even more. I'm pretty sure that the differences in AF speed, and low-light performance between DSLR's and mirrorless are becoming a non-issue for everyone except maybe sports shooters! One more piece of advice: I would take your 7D to a store that stocks mirrorless systems, compare ergonomics, and shoot the same subject with your 7D and a mirrorless camera with equivalent lens, and process the images side-by-side at home. I bet the image quality differences will surprise you! Samples of my Fujifilm mirrorless system photography can be seen on my site, which can't be posted here. If you have specific questions about that system, please feel free to contact me. Thanks, and best of luck in your decision!<div></div>

Lex, you've made some excellent points regarding the merits of FF v. APS-C/m4/3. I think that if we knew more about the OP's subject and output media/size preferences, we could give more specific advice as well. Like you, I too, prefer more in focus than less, particularly in my landscape and product shots. If I may comment on your preference for smaller formats when "wanting more of the photo in reasonably sharp focus", I might add that if one uses a FF system, and makes use of the hyperfocal distance when focusing, then one can maximize depth of field for a given aperture, meaning that you wouldn't necessarily need to stop down to f/16 (thus minimizing sharpness-robbing effects of diffraction) to achieve "reasonable sharpness" in your image. That technique, plus using wider angle lenses or moving farther back from your subject, will serve to obtain greater overall image sharpness.

Evan, no, I think that for "non-professionals", it simply boils down to a balance between one's photographic "needs", ergonomics, and wallet size :-). Personally, as a non-pro who occasionally sells work, I shoot Nikon APS-C, which satisfies for most needs, however, I admittedly have G.A.S., and would love to dabble in the Sony a7 system. Bottom line: Don't fret too much about gear, and just enjoy your photography! (Most modern systems, from m4/3 to FF and beyond, are quite good. Only pixel peepers like me are on a constant quest for better image quality. Happy Shooting!

Hi Evan. The first poster said it well. Basically, the larger the sensor (and individual pixels), the better the light-gathering capability, and the larger one can enlarge the image before noise (digital "grain") appears in the output. This is simply physics, and folks can debate this all they want, but I doubt the laws of physics will change as a result. That said however, exactly how well an image or print addresses one's needs and purposes is rather subjective, and probably the underlying cause of this debate. But in general, if you know you'll never shoot in extremely low light OR make poster-size prints (30x40 inches and up), then most modern APS-C or M4/3 system should suffice. For example, the Olympus System with its micro 4/3 sensor (not to mention excellent lenses), is quite satisfactory for many photographers' needs, Unless you regularly produce very large exhibition prints, or shoot in exceedingly low "available" light. For those specific purposes, I think it's common knowledge that a FF System (such as Sony a7 Series, or of course high-end Nikon/Canon) would be better suited to the task. Again, just my "educated" opinion.

Hello Jon. As a former film shooter of about 30 years, though never owning/shooting a Fuji X100s, I do know something about that particular model, as I've been a big fan of all things Fuji, ever since using some of their large format optics back in the '70's and 80's. I can say that Fuji does know their optics (as well as their film emulsions)! I also understand that Fuji makes some of the Hassy lenses as well, which only embellishes my point about Fuji quality. That said, Jon, I agree that you are really comparing apples and oranges here! Because, as good as the Fuji system is, the laws of physics simply won't permit a fair comparison...the larger format wins, especially in terms of overall image quality. Sure, you'll find scenarios such as low light or action, in which the sensor trumps medium format film's ISO capabilities, but for general photography, medium format wins, IMHO. I submit that the X100s would be a great complement to your Hassy system, i.e., for travel or street work. In any case, have fun!