Bueche: After having done some pixel peeping, it's clear that not even Fuji know how to process their own x-trans files. Strange artefacts and 'worms' are all over the place and there's hardly any trace of what can be called 'details'. At pixel level, the images look like water paintings. This is even worse than x-trans I&II.
Check this Image (sample gallery, DPR).....
What you are doing is ridiculous on many levels:
Firstly, you are looking for detail at 400%. That’s funny, but it’s not pixel peeping. It’s microscoping!Secondly, you use a JPG-file. JPG-files have artefacts so you never know if some noise was created by the camera or by the JPG compression.Thirdly, you choose some remote part of the picture which may or may not have been in the plain of focus.And lastly, you don’t take into account that the lens may have had some effect on the picture quality.If you were trying to do some serious testing – you failed.
Terry Breedlove: Whoa what happened these images are seriously horrible. Surely this can't be the true output from this camera can it ? My little walk around Nikon D 3300 with cheap kit lens destroys this Fuji and I only paid $499 for it. Something is wrong here I just can't image it really being that bad.
The first law of dpreview:No matter what camera is tested, there are some people who claim, that this is the worst camera they have ever seen. Even their phone can take better pictures.
You can bet your live on that. It happens every time!
Raphot: I think it's tedious and futile to compare the X-pro2 to other mirrorless cameras and slate it because of its lower specs. I think it's basically a cutting-edge digital camera in a sturdy analogue body with an amazing amount of direct control,. As such it won't be suited for all purposes. For example, it won't be suited at all for sports photography despite its fast fps. But once you slow down and think about every shot, you'll start taking better pictures. At least that's what happened with me, I have an XT-1 and for me its the best camera I ever owned. I've been increasingly using it with vintage Leica R lenses and it's been an absolute joy.
@kforeverWi-Fi is stable if the smartphone sits right next to the X-T1.I tried do take some pictures of birds on a branch. (Wi-Fi could be amazing for this purpose.) The distance between camera and smartphone was about 4 meters and I lost connection every time after several minutes. (And yes, I did disable any kind of power saving.)
mosc: This shows the advantage Fuji has over Canon and Nikon in not selling a FF system. Fuji makes a much more reasonable APS-C telephoto compared to buying a heavier piece of FF glass and throwing away most of it's light mounting them on a D500 or 7D. Long APS-C glass is almost non-existent. Pentax has a couple lenses but even they seem to be switching back to FF. I doubt we'll see ANY new long (500mm+ equiv focal length) glass from them.
This lens shows how overpriced long m43 glass is too delivering the same focal range from a larger physical aperture for less money and similar weight on a format with higher resolution sensors.
I don't think this + a Fuji T1 is going to focus well enough for birders but if it did, it would make a lot more sense for shooting at 600mm than what they typically use.
Where is the advantage? I don't see it.Canon's EF 100-400 mm (1st generation) is about the same size and the same weight. But it is FF!
@kecajkerugoWhat's your point?A company doesn’t need to implement a feature properly if only a few people use this feature?I think: If you implement and advertise a feature do it right.If you can’t do it right, don’t do it at all.
I own the X-T1 and I think it is a camera with a lot of flaws!
The dials, especially the 4-way selector, are awful, the door on the left side is faulty (bulging), rendering the water resistance void, the battery indicator is a joke, the Wi-Fi is unstable, etc.
I would very much like to update to the X-Pro 2 or a coming X-T2 because Fuji has great lenses and all in all the X-T1 is still very useable and is capable of producing very nice pictures.
But I will wait and read the reviews very carefully to see, if the new models are as flawed as the old ones were.
Why is this lens so big?
I don’t have a problem with big lenses for mirrorless cameras.I understand that a 400 mm zoom lens cannot be small.
However, this lens is just as heavy (1.375 kg) as my Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS lens (1.38 kg) and it’s even longer and thicker. Both have the same aperture range, both have IS. (I know, the Fuji IS is better than the Canon. The Canon is an old lens.)
The Canon is an excellent lens. I’m sure the Fuji is excellent, too. But the Canon lens is for full frame cameras.
Shouldn’t a lens for a APS-C sensor be smaller than a lens for full frame cameras?Isn’t that the main point of mirrorless cameras with smaller sensors?
Pierre Louis: At that price, who would go for this vs a Phantom 3?
I might - because it's smaller and lighter.
Lil g: How can the earth rotate when its flat?
You have to be really ignorant and/or really stupid to believe that the Earth is flat.But then again: You have to be really ignorant and/or really stupid to believe that the Earth is only 6.000 years old.So why do we laugh at Flat-Earth-Lunatics if half of the US population are Young-Earth Creationists?
Neodp: Not withstand the efficacy of the update and overall good or not enough improvement(s) then their its a much greater point here....
No one (hardly?) said (possible or not) this camera was deficient in tracking AF or low light comparatively when they were promoting it's first adopter goodness and new pros!
What does that have to do with value? It means you can't know until the camera has been out a while and put through it's paces for the tasks photographers value the most. It begs the question; what benefits matter most? Subjectivity is not a wide... as it is made out to be. Yes there's room for subjective benefits and horses for courses to a point. There no accounting for tastes. Yet that view is completely overblown; from the perspective of new camera design. Yes that should include the user need, that's the photographer that actually takes pictures. Not Gear Acquisition and paper specs alone. There's a lot more to a total camera than that. It's a warning about over priced vanity.
@Neodp: You have words but don't know how to use them.
GaryJP: They might be assuring us they are going to keep Lightroom as a standalone product, but it is a nightmare to get through their site without being signed up to a Creative Cloud you don't want. They are just pushing the standalone right to the periphery.
Liars. As we always knew.
If you are logged in to Adobe's site you don't get the option to buy the standalone (not CC) version.So you have to log out, select the standalone version and then log in again to finish the purchase.
Also, I think, it's quite obvious, that they are holding back features (like an improvement of the book module). This new features will be published only as regular CC-Updates.
So they don't yet discontinue the standalone version but they discourage you to buy it.
A lot of people seem to believe that - if you buy and own software - you can use it forever; or at least for the next 25 years.
Sorry to be the one to break the news: You can't!
In 10 years your current computer will be old and retired or slow and useless or dead without chance of resurrection.
You will have a new computer and the new computer will have a new OS.
And there's a good chance your current Photoshop (or Capture One or whatever you own) will not work with the new OS because the OS will be new and your software will be old. Real old.
But don’t worry! You can still put the box with your software on a shelf and tell your grandchildren: This it Photoshop (or Caputure One) from 2014.I bought it! I own it! It's mine! (My precious!)
And if only I could find an Emulator for Win7 (or OS X) for my Win 14 (or OS XIV) I could show you, what I can do with this little darling.I’m sure it still works like a charm.
gskolenda: Who gives a rats A__ about Adobe! Shame on you DP, they suck and you know it, over 95% of you followers could care less, this just irritates the crap out of them! Stupid post I say!!!
So they actually care quite a lot.
Congratulations!I find your photo to be the most appealing one in the whole challenge.It's very calm, peaceful - but also a little bit eerie.
papa natas: A camera that NEVER went to the moon as well as the crew.
Typical conspiracy lunatic: He doesn’t know the difference between Mercury and Apollo (nor does he care), but he still thinks he`s the one who knows the truth.
Who cares about such boring stuff as facts, evidence and proof if there are some youtube-videos that claim everything is an amazing, global, gigantic conspiracy?
"But we have a solution with the optional Wireless File Transmitter WFT-E7A"Yeah, that's nice for Canon. For me - not so much!I will most certainly not pay $850 just for Wi-Fi.
onlooker: Some of the comments here like "have the decency to afterwards ask for permission, and if not given, delete the photo right there and then" drive me crazy. It is not about THE human, it is about A human in a given situation. It is about human condition.
This reaction may be partly because this site is polluted by portraits of grinning street kids. It may be because, despite protests, DPR condones sick photo challenges like "A file I would like to punch".
Look at the work of many of the photographers whose names I posted earlier, and you may understand. Do you think Henri Cartier-Bresson should have chased some of his subjects? Really?
Or perhaps it is because you think that someone wants a photo of your face and wants to stare at you later? Then you need to get over yourself. It's not about you.
@JJ1983: There is an interview with a lawyer, who wrote a book specifically about laws concerning photographers.The interview (in German): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajVLAMB7GTM&The book he wrote (also in German): https://www.galileo-press.de/recht-fur-fotografen_2904/
km25: I have only tried the WiFi at home. Do you have to work off some public WiFi, or do you just need the camera and phone.
You just need the camera and your phone.The camera creates its own WiFi.
"Have the decency to afterwards ask for permission, and if not given, delete the photo right there and then".That's the law in Germany and (I'm sure) some other countries - whether you like it or not.In fact the law in Germany states that you have to ask before taking the picture, but most likely you will get away if you have the decency to ask afterwards.
However, since you are American and most likely don’t care about the laws in foreign countries: Have you ever tried to take the picture of somebody else’s child? And did you tell the mother of that child when she went berserk: “Don’t worry, mam. It’s not about your child it’s about the human condition!”And if you did: How long did it take you to get out of prison?
Chrysanthi Lykousi: The video is amazing. I hope camera manufacturers like Fuji can create new cameras that are more useful to street photographers who take pictures without permission or against our subjects' will: We need cameras that don't look like cameras. Wi-fi and silent shutter are useful features, but in many street situations just being visible with a camera at hand is a cause of alarm to nearby people. We need cameras that can be camouflaged as other objects or hidden under our clothes.
You don't sound like a photographer, you sound like some creepy voyeur.