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!

<p>Robert,<br>

The other posters correctly pointed out that focusing accuracy is really independent of f/stop. I might add that using a mid-range aperture such as f/5.6 to f/8 usually gives the sharpest images, so based on the resulting print, you could say that the "<em>apparent</em>" focusing accuracy of the system is improved as you stop down, but only to a point, given diffraction. Smaller apertures (f/16-f/32) gives greater depth of field at a given subject distance, but again, diffraction takes a toll on image sharpness regardless of the "accuracy" of focus. Conversely, you can have a highly accurate focusing system when using the same lens at its maximum aperture (wide open), say, f/2.8, but only have a very small plane in focus, especially the closer the subject is. Focusing accuracy is dependent more on the camera's AF system, mirror/box (if a DSLR) and sensor alignment, and lens element alignment. Many DSLRs have an "AF Adjustment" option that lets you "tweak" any "front" or "back" focus for a given lens. Of course, mirrorless systems like your NEX 6 has no need of this since it has no mirror, and focus is determined directly off the sensor! Good luck with your NEX 6! </p>

<p>Hi John. <br>

You're not alone, sir. I was in the same boat (though with a Pentax K-5 system, rather than Canon). I actually grew weary of relying on my poor eyes to verify sharp focus in large prints, let alone mess with the AF Adjustment in camera to compensate for any potential front/back focus issues. Plus, I wanted a smaller, lighter "travel" kit, yet maintaining very high quality. I was SERIOUSLY considering the following mirrorless systems: Sony NEX-7, Olympus OM-D EM-5, and Fuji XE-1. For various reasons (not least of which was budget ;-/, after <em>much</em> research on image quality and debating merits of each, believe it or not, I <em>stayed</em> in the DSLR world, with a Nikon D5200 and Nikkors 16-85 and 35mm f1.8! (Just couldn't swing the D7100 that does have AF Fine Tuning, which the D5200 does not. That said, I am obtaining VERY sharp and detailed images with this kit, and I fully expect these 24 meg images to print sharply to 30x40, as I was getting very sharp 24x36 prints from my Pentax K-5. However, I still yearn for a very good mirrorless system, and am always doing research. Good luck to you sir!</p>

<p>Paul, I too, come from a large format background, and frankly, IMHO, as good as digital is these days, it's not even close to the detail and overall beauty of a large format chrome, not even a D800E, Leica S2 or a Phase One 80 megapixel back. That said, I do think that there are reasonable systems that do offer superb image quality for macro and moderate enlargement. The Olympus OM-D with the new Olympus 60mm Macro lens is supposed to offer extremely sharp image detail, of course, provided you don't need mural size prints! I would also think that the Nikon D800E with a 105mm Micro-Nikkor would be quite exceptional as well. It's a matter of need and budget, I suppose. Good luck to you sir! </p>

<p>Hi Ron. Very glad to hear you are enjoying your XP-1! Your comments about its image quality give me high hopes for the upcoming Fuji X100S...I understand that its lens and new sensor and processor make for stellar sharpness and detail. If verified in a Production model, I shall have to seriously consider it. Thanks again.</p>

<p>Ron, your comments about the Fuji X-Pro 1 are very interesting. I too, was considering the OM-D as a "travel" kit, but then read about the upcoming Fuji X100S. (BTW, I actually got to handle the OM-D at a camera show lasts year, and found its' build quality quite robust, though indeed "small" as you said.)<br>

My main criteria for a travel system is Image Quality and compactness. Judging from the specs of this new model, I think it would qualify in both departments. What I'm most interested in is if the image quality of the new sensor and processor is at least equal to that of the X-Pro 1. I understand that the Fuji X lenses are superb, and I assume that the new HT-EBC coating on the fixed 23mm lens on the X100S would improve on the already stellar image quality of the X100 it replaces. So, I assume you are completely happy with the image quality you're getting from your X-Pro 1? Thank you, Steve</p>

<p>Brendan,<br>

I think you may have voided your warranty... </p>

<p>Sanford, I agree with David's comment. I've been a b/w fan and advocate for 30 years, having admired Ansel Adams' work and processed my own b/w images in the film days, and only really even paying attention to color in the last 15 years or so. But frankly, with the myriad controls in Photoshop to convert to B/W, I have not seen a compelling reason to have a dedicated b/w camera. Granted, the Leica Monochrom may have a subtle advantage in terms of sharpness, but if one uses good photographic technique during exposure and in post, I think one could obtain <em><strong>superb</strong></em> b/w images from a color original, comparing favorably with those of the "pure" b/w film days! I wonder of Master Adams would agree. </p>