eric_brody

<p>Thanks Ray for helping me understand what your real question was. Andy L has it right, all EVF's are 100% finders, showing precisely what will be in the frame and no more. To see what is beyond the frame, take your eye from the finder. Ray is referring to what my rangefinder Leica M3 and Mamiya 7 have, frame lines which showed the view for the longer lenses. With those you could see beyond what the lens actually captures. Actually it was quite a pain to use, at least for my purposes, and they were not always terribly accurate. I like to fill the view with what I'm photographing. The X T-1 and similar mirrorless cameras such as the Sony A7 series, are "live view" through the finder but so much easier than the live view on my Nikon D800E. Good luck with whatever you decide to get.</p>

<p>Hi Amy et al,<br> The X T-1 does NOT have a hybrid finder. You may be slightly misunderstanding the term. A hybrid viewfinder is defined as the combination of an electronic and optical finder, switchable, in the same camera as in the X Pro 1 and 2 as well as the X100S & T. All EVF's are what you call "WYSIWYG," that's how they are designed. I'm afraid I have no clue what you are talking about regarding the "white square." The only white square I see is the adjustable indicator of the focus point. In my experience it does not move when people enter the frame. Perhaps the OP is referring to the face detection system, but it's not clear. In manual focus mode one can show a smaller magnified part of the view on the right for more accurate manual focusing. This is not an optical view but rather a portion of the electronic finder. The X T-1 is a moderately complex camera with many menu options. It takes some study to learn all of its options and choices. I too have Mr Pfirstinger's book and often refer to it when I have a question. Good luck. The X T-1 is a terrific camera.</p>

<p>In the beginning, just about every purchaser of a mirrorless camera thinks they'll use their "legacy" lenses with the new camera. As time goes by, with few exceptions, nearly everyone ends up using the manufacturer's lenses, primes or zooms. Unless you enjoy hassles, and manual focus, and problems with wide angles (eg Leica wides on Sony A7's), you'll likely succumb. After all, making images is what we do, not fussing with adapters. I had an Olympus OM mirrorless and bought Leica and Nikon adapters, I used them initially but soon used only the Olympus lenses. I now use a Fuji X T-1 and initially bought adapters for it too, but now have Fuji's "holy trinity," 10-24, 16-55, 50-140 and rarely even use my Fuji primes, as lovely as they are. </p>

<p>sRGB is a considerably smaller space than Adobe RGB. Why limit yourself. I shoot only RAW with my X T-1 so the real image is untouched by these settings. Until chip makers and camera makers figure out how to generate a proper RAW histogram or preview, and it will take a lot of processing power, use the largest color space available. I'm with Ellis.</p>

<p>There are not a lot of ways to do what you want without significant compromise. The Sony RX10III has a long, relatively fast zoom but it's not cheap at $1,500US. Granted you're not trying to make 30x40 images. Not sure what lens-camera combo you used for your example but it might be a bit over sharpened, lots of halos. The rules of physics are hard to beat. To get enough light, you need a decent aperture, to stop action you need a fast shutter speed, image stabilization does not stop the subject. Good luck figuring this out, let us know.</p>

<p>Everyone is different. These posts do not include the weight, height and condition of the poster. In the film era, I hiked trails all over Mt Hood with well over 20lb of 4x5 and sturdy aluminum 3 series Gitzo and I'm a 5'4" small person. I was younger and stronger then. If one's main purpose of a trip is photography, there's nothing wrong with a 20 lb pack of gear, if it meets one's needs and assuming one can carry it without grunting every few steps. Physics and current camera design dictate certain things. Full frame cameras require a certain image circle. Combine that with autofocus motors, possibly stabilization motors, and sturdy construction and the lenses, especially at longer focal length start to get large, and expensive. This happens even with smaller sensors. My Fuji X T-1 is APS-c but my 50-140 f/2.8 (75-200 equivalent) still weighs a kilogram. My 70-200 f/2.8 Nikon lens weighs a pound (30%) more. The Sony 70-200 f/2.8 also weighs 3.3 lb, the same as the Nikon. Lloyd Chambers, a well known presence in photo web circles believes APS-C is a dead end format and appears to love the Sony A7RII, though he does cite its problems, and hate all Fuji gear, for reasons that he also cites. More megapixels matter to him and to many others. I think they do too but when I print images from my 16MP Fuji, they look pretty good. Were I printing 24x36" or 30x40" I might change my tune but realistically how many of those can you put on the wall?<br> In the end, my Fuji kit, X T-1 body, 10-24, 16-55, 50-140, the full frame equivalent of 15-200mm, and up to 300 if I include the 1.4 converter, weighs just over 6 lb. My D800E with its "holy trinity" of 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200 weighs 9.8 lb! <br> Good luck Gup, I hope you're not too confused by all this banter. :-)</p>

<p>It's a tough call for sure. I used and still have a D800E and both "holy trinities," 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 and 24, 45, and 85 PCE's. I now use a Fuji X T-1. I have both primes, 14, 23, 35, 56, 60 macro and zooms, 10-21, 16-55, and 50-140. Yes, no doubt I have way too many lenses. I rented a Sony A7RII, "to get it out of my system," and concluded that my Fuji works just fine. I too am a perfectionist, using large format, and medium format in the film era. I do not print large, 13x20 is usually my largest and 9x13 is my usual so 42MP is overkill (?). If you have friends with any of these systems, handle them, shoot with them. Fuji's lenses are well made and optically excellent. My problem with the Sony, and I do occasionally long for full frame, was that there was minimal size and weight savings, especially with the new zooms. Even my Fuji zooms are not exactly small or light. Sony lenses also tend to be pretty expensive, though I know you said cost wa not a huge issue. When I rented, the simple 50mm f/1.8 lens cost almost US$1,000. I don't mind paying for quality, I used Hasselblad and Mamiya 7 systems but that seemed egregious at the time. I sat down and made a spreadsheet of the weights and costs of many combinations, Fuji, Sony, and Nikon. I'd be happy to share it with you off line if you message me. Lloyd Chambers blog has lots of opinions on this conundrum as well. You might want to look at it.<br> Good luck.</p>

<p>Think about it. Having a single backup is inadequate. All hard drives will fail...All hard drives will fail. Simultaneous failure of two drives is unlikely but not impossible, especially if one includes things like theft and/or fire or other natural disaster. I've concluded that three is the minimum. I'm no mathematician but realize that the simultaneous failure of three drives, especially if one is off site, is almost impossible. In the event of nuclear war, my photos are the least of my problems anyway. As I and others have said many times..."there are two types of people, those with backups of important information and those who will eventually lose data." There's lots of information about this topic on photo.net, Google is your friend. </p>

<p>An excellent photographer and teacher of mine, who was once a photojournalist, starts by putting an "x" on ALL files in LR, then goes over them one by one and decides which ones to KEEP, the rest are GONE. Sounds harsh but, at least on a Mac, until you actually empty the trash, they are retrievable. I've tried this and still do it sometimes, but now usually ask myself first... will I ever print this and if the answer is no, it's gone. With social media so prevalent, I sometimes ask, will this get posted on Facebook even if I never print it, and so on.</p>

<p>The only mention of "green tint" that I've seen was made recently by Lloyd Chambers in his blog. He is in the process of testing the X Pro-2 camera and some Fuji lenses. He seems to vehemently dislike the X trans sensor used by Fuji. He has his reasons, and he certainly knows more than I do about some of the technical issues but I've been using the X trans cameras for a number of years after switching from a Nikon D800E, still a great camera, and have seen none of the issues he seems to see. Remember, this is the internet where ideas can go anywhere, some provable, some not. I just go out and make photos. Look at the output and do not fuss about the order of the sensor pixels.</p>

<p>You seem to be asking essentially the same question multiple times on photo.net but here goes. Landscape, street, and portraiture, hmm, almost all of contemporary photography there, except studio product work, and macro. Landscape is often tripod based, slow, precise, street is fast and impulsive, usually hand held, portraiture covers everything. I'm not sure your question is answerable as framed. Larger sensors may have better quality if enlarged greatly. Do you print? If not, most of this is moot anyway. If you do, how large? Unless you go > 13x19, it's also moot. <br> <br /> Cameras are tools; different ones work best for different tasks. No one tool can do everything equally well. I suspect you'd like to know what's the best compromise and I believe the X T-1 probably is the one you want. There are a wide variety of excellent reasonably small lenses from 15 (FF equiv) to 600 (FF equiv), primes and zooms. The X T-1 has a tilt screen, great for street work, and for some reason the XP2 does not. The EVF is excellent. I use Fuji gear since the X E-1 and now an X T-1. I've played with the XP2 but not the Sony tho I spent almost a week with a rented A7RII. <br> You'll commit to a system so choose wisely. Rent if you can, play in a store if you can, but if you do, buy from them even if it's slightly more expensive. We need to support local stores where they exist.</p>

<p>I've had Fuji's since the X E-1 first arrived and now use an X T-1 with lots of fine Fuji glass, primes and zooms. The difference between 16 and 24 MP is real but not earth shattering. It shows only in pretty large prints. A significant part of what you pay for with the XP2 is the complex optical finder. If you're a street shooter and think that you'll really use the optical finder, the XP2 makes sense, if not, either get an X T-1, a proven fine camera, or an X T10. You'll not regret having such a lovely machine for the next 6 months or so while awaiting the X T-2. You might even make some really great images during that time :-). I have an X 100S and love it but rarely use the optical finder so I'll keep photographing and see what the X T-2 has to offer.<br> Sony has shown what happens with full frame. The A7RII is certainly a fine camera, I rented one and enjoyed using it, but I like the Fuji system better and I'm coming to it from a Nikon D800E. Full frame means full frame sized lenses and Sony has shown that they'll not be small, despite the diminutive A7RII body. Look at the specs of the new GM 24-70 and the new GM 70-200. Both look like they're as just about as large and heavy as their Nikon/Canon equivalents.<br> Go out and make photos, worry less about megapixels. I say that glibly but also struggle with wanting more but ultimately realize that my photos with the X T-1 are as good or better than those I made with the D800E.</p>

<p>Bob and Steve... did I mention moire? I just re-read my post and don't think I mentioned it. In any case moire has not been a problem for me with the X T-1 and actually not with the D800E either. </p>

<p>Perhaps you should go back to your first question and re-ask yourself why you want full frame. You say about the NEX-7, "its 24.3 mp sensor provides images that are usually more than high enough in resolution." You also say you do motorsports, where the extra "reach" of the APS-C format is an advantage. I'm just trying to make you think through your question about full frame. I went through the Nikon DX bodies, D70, D200 and then got a D700, and later a D800E. I'm now back to APS-C with the Fuji X system. <br> Don't forget full frame cameras require full frame lenses, which tend to be large. You cannot change physics. The "advantage" of the Sony A7Rii, for example, (it's smaller than my Fuji X T-1, but not lighter) goes away once you start putting lenses on it. <br> Good luck with whatever you choose, it's your choice, and your money.</p>

<p>The Fuji X system will manage all but the largest print requirements. I made the switch in the X E-1 era and haven't looked back. I still have my D800E and periodically use it when I can't resist the lure of more megapixels or need to use a tilt shift lens (which cannot be adapted) but otherwise it's Fuji all the way. I currently use the 16-50 f/2.8 and 55-200 but have most of the primes as well. I bought the 56 f/1.2 for use as a portrait lens and it's sharp as a tack but a bit slower focusing than I'd like, especially with moving children. As Steve said, simply compare the files, not just pixel peeping on a screen, but with a print made at the largest size you'll likely use. I find my most common print size is 9x13.5" but often print 13x20 and no one has asked me how many megapixels my camera has. Soon there will be an X T-2, presumably with the 24MP sensor of the X Pro-2 but realistically there's not much difference between 16 and 24MP. Take your time, be careful and good luck.</p>

<p>I won't get into your choice of camera, you said what you wanted, just wondered about the best choice of from whom to purchase it. I have a Fuji X T-1 and have had great success with it. Sold my Oly, nice camera, Fuji has better image quality and superb lenses.<br> Another vote for B&H. I've been purchasing from them since the 70's, before the internet and NEVER have had a problem. Best Buy has been a nightmare of non-availability and issues.<br> They're huge and if you deal with enough people, someone will be unhappy. Sometimes the purchaser has unrealistic expectations (do a photonet search and you'll find the occasional rant by an unreasonable person) sometimes B&H makes an error. What matters is how it's handled, and it appears usually to be handled well.<br> Henry, if you see this, you run a great operation.</p>

<p>I'd consider the copying route. I have a Nikon 9000 which is now my only real access to my extensive 6x6 and 6x7 negative collection. I'll likely keep it forever but it's been quite a while since I've scanned anything. I keep a jump drive with an older Mac OS to boot my current computer if I do want to scan but...<br> Scanning is quite time consuming and has its own learning curve. Of the scanners you list, clearly the Nikon 9000 is the best if you do go that route. Flatbeds do not do too well with 35mm film, results with 120 film tend to be quite bit better. The others have covered the potential problems with used older scanners. <br> Good luck.</p>

<p>Relevant questions include... do you use hardware calibration and if so, does your old monitor calibrate? If you don't use hardware calibration, you should if you're trying to do accurate color photography. The current champion brands for accurate color are NEC and Eizo. It's nice to have a monitor that equals or exceeds the Adobe RGB color space. Budget for a calibration device. My NEC does wonderfully with Spectraview software and the Spectraview sensor. </p>

<p>I agree with Barry, get at least 1TB, 2TB is even better and minimally more money. Remember what Mae West said, "Too much of a good thing is never enough." That is absolutely true with storage, be it cards or hard disk space. I've never heard anyone complain that they had too much storage. What do you mean by "memory sticks"? </p>

<p>Another quick but important point, set the camera to record 14 bit, lossless compressed. You'll save a bit of space and lose nothing in quality, that's what lossless means. </p>

<p>Michele, a couple of suggestions/answers since we're now back on good terms, I hope. I'm a retired bum so have plenty of time to give detailed answers.<br /> 1) backup- there are two kinds of computer people, those who have a good backup strategy and those who have lost data, e.g. precious photos. Please have a robust hard drive backup system set up before you leave. All you really need is an inexpensive couple of small USB hard drives, easily available almost anywhere (I assume you're in the US?)(I just got a 2TB drive for my daughter for less than $80US). Wifi cloud backup in a remote location is likely to be so slow as to be unusable. On the same subject, with my D800E, I always have the camera write simultaneously to both cards. Once, and that's all it takes, in the Galapagos, on a ship, I had a card problem and having that second card really bailed me out. Get a few more cards, with a D750 you'll do fine with 32GB cards, or get 64's either way, it's cheap insurance. Problems never seem to happen when you're prepared, only when you're not.<br /> With a good backup system in place, I'd save them all, except those with obvious technical issues, such as out of focus, blurred. Even those poorly exposed can often be salvaged in post. When I travel, I look at my images at the end of each day but never do any serious editing, save it for when you're home. In the best of all possible worlds, you'll not erase ANY cards while traveling, good insurance. That way you'll not have the question of "did I just erase a card full of new images I've not yet downloaded?" and will avert tragedy. I look at ALL the possible things that could go wrong (my wife thinks I'm a pessimist, but I think I'm just careful, VERY CAREFUL.) and try and think of ways to avoid them, ahead of time. <br /> 2) RAW files are NOT degraded when copied, nor are jpegs. JPEGS ARE degraded when manipulated in a post processing program and re-saved, another reason to shoot RAW. Except in rare cases of file corruption, that exact copying principle is what is behind backups, they're exact copies of the originals. While I agree with Barry's first point, I respectfully disagree with his second about switching back and forth. I'd not try to be too clever and shoot jpegs in some situations, you're just asking to make a mistake and forget to change back to RAW. Shoot RAW, you'll be happy later. Storage, whether it's cards or hard drives is really relatively cheap. In the late 80's I paid $600US for a 40MB, that's MEGABYTE, not gigabyte, hard drive. The other day I bought a 6 TERABYTE hard drive for just over $200US! The math is boggling. <br /> I hope you have a fabulous trip and do try to stop and smell the roses, wherever you are, and do not, like me, get so focused on the photography that you miss out on something more important. I know I'm having fun when I can say I don't even care if I have a camera, it's so lovely.</p>

<p>Hi Michelle, I certainly did not intend to offend and do apologize for my incorrect conclusion... but if you were to look at your initial very broad question, my response, your initial response, and the fact that you did not identify which camera you have until the last post of the second page of this thread, it is not unreasonable to wonder if you were trolling. It's all in the details.<br> I'm glad you have a D750. It is an impressively sophisticated camera which will likely serve you for many years. Without wanting to discourage anyone, I was simply reminding all of us that it's way more than a camera and computer; it's cards, card readers, printers, continuously changing software, (I just updated Photoshop 10 minutes ago), backup systems, (perhaps more important than anything else), and everything else that goes into the increasingly complex process called digital photography. <br> I do wish you the best of luck and hope you'll have fun.<br> PS. Shoot RAW on your upcoming trip. Don't shoot only jpegs. You can keep the RAW files separately, and convert a COPY of the RAWs to jpeg if you want to get started immediately playing with them before your RAW managing skills are better. When you're more comfortable with a RAW management program, you'll have those precious files and will make much better images. Bring a backup system on the trip and use it... every day if you're doing lots of photography. There are many articles which explain why shooting RAW makes sense for important images. With RAW files you can do most anything, jpegs are quite limiting and you can go from RAW to jpeg, but not the other way. The analogy from the film era is the difference between having a skilled printer work with your negatives versus having ONLY the 3x5 "drugstore" prints and no negatives at all. <br> Best,</p>

<p>I forgot to answer Michelle's question about "camera clubs with RULES." I honestly don't know if they still exist, but in the past there were "camera clubs" in many places. They had competitions in which they (someone or a panel) "judged" photos on the basis of fixed rules of composition and other criteria. I hope and expect they no longer exist. I personally prefer a critique in which a reviewer, often a workshop leader or other person with reviewing expertise, comment about an image or group of images. This is a two way conversation with reviewer and subject able openly to discuss and debate various aspects of an image from the technical to the esthetic. I hope that is clear. You can still disagree; the ultimate response is always "I like it this way."</p>

<p>Hi Michele,<br> I'd love to help but...you're a bit vague, no personal criticism intended, about your goals. "Professional quality photos" does not say much. Indeed, you did not really answer any of the questions. You sound like you might not be quite ready. We still do not know what camera you're using, or any of the other parameters I mentioned.<br> All of what I discussed is a sizable investment not only in money but also in time. Any photo software program worth working with is a bit like a foreign language, in that it must be used regularly or skills will decline. With due respect, I'd do some more thinking, make lists, on paper, of what you really hope to accomplish before you start spending time or money. Please revisit this forum, we can often help but we cannot read your mind in terms of your goals. Best of luck.</p>

<p>Congratulations on your start into the wild world of digital imaging. Were you to give us some idea of your photographic and computing sophistication, we might be able to better advise you. What do you want to do with your photography? Do you aspire to detailed deliberate landscapes, quick street work, portraits, travel with your family? What camera and lens(es) do you have? What is your approximate budget? Do you intend do print or to put photos on the web. The reflexive recommendation of Lightroom is good, but might be more than you need. The "standard" for "serious" photographers :-) is Lightroom or Capture One, usually with full Photoshop. For people like me, who've been at it in one form or another for 50 years, the Adobe $9.95 monthly price for their package is a bargain, but you might be happier with a one time purchase of Elements for under $100. Your first computing decision is between a desktop and laptop. If you'd prefer a desktop, and want to stay with Apple, the current iMac is hard to beat, pick your price, get a decent size drive, and as much memory as you can afford and have fun. If you'd prefer a laptop, the same applies with a Macbook Pro. If you go the laptop route and are "serious," consider and budget for an external monitor and calibration of said monitor, such as an NEC with Spectraview. All that might be overkill, for both your photography and budget. Also, perhaps more importantly, check your local photo scene and/or college scene for classes and friendly groups. Avoid camera clubs with RULES! And, most importantly, slow down and have fun!</p>