FamlilyPhotographer: The optical quality is awesome...but the weight is damn heavy....i cant travel w 35 art and 50 art anymore :((make it lighter plzzzz
@wildkat2 - the 1/f number of the max aperture doesn't actually describe how much light goes through, until you know the focal lenght of the lens. Numbers like 1.4 or 2.0 actually describe the ratio between the focal lengh and the optical path diameter, which is the only number that determines the amount of photons that will accumulate during a time period to form an image. So, Aur is wrong, because an F number of 1.4 is a property of the lens and is always 1.4, no matter what sensor is used or not with that lens, but 1.4 with different focal lenghts describe different lens diameter and therefore different blurring power and total light capture ability. That's why the lenses designed for 8 x 10 cameras are rarely 1.4, they would be huge! But yes, the light capture ability per surface unit is the same for any 1.4 lens.
Which one is supposed to be the better photograph? The blue one with a bright spot on the forehead and harsh shadows under the nose or the orange one with burned out cheek and nose?
Anything? The Fuji XF 35/1.4 is both excellent optically and very lightweight at 185 grams.
Paul Farace: Long live mechanical shutters!The maximum flash synchronization speed is the fastest speed the shutter moves WITHOUT have to resort to the moving slit to achieve the set speed. It used to be about 1/60 for horizontal travel cloth shutters and 1/125 for vertical travel metal shutters. The latter are faster because the distance top to bottom is less than across the horizontal axis. Since the digital SLRs use smaller crop formats and mechanical technology has improved we can get sync speeds up to about 1/250 ... but the flashes today can fire stroboscopically achieving sync speeds as fast as the shutter allows, just at reduced power, a limitation of the flash.
Strobostropic flash allow you to use a higher shutter speed per image area, but there is still a 1/250th second or longer time difference between the top and bottom part of your image, creating some occasionnal distorstion. That's occasionnaly annoying ;)
FRANCISQUAN: I'm just amazed that the Canon 7D mirror box can film at 10,000fps yet Nikon struggle with their flare ridden 6.5 fps full frame camera.
I guess Canon is the way to go for the newer technologies like 4K..
FRANCISQUAN, I know you are trying to be funny, but to convey your meaning, in journalistic grammar, they would have used the present tense.
oselimg: And why this camera wasn't mirrorless one? Mirrorless is the way ahead. There would be no need for videos like this if all cameras were mirrorless. There are many cameras with wi-fi and selfie functions. Why don't they film those?
There is no such thing as mirrorless vs mechanical shutter. Most mirrorless today HAVE a mechanical shutter. What they don't have is the bouncy mirror.
Anastigmat: The reason Canon and Nikon have dominated the professional SLRand DSLR market is their ability to manufacture high speed shutters and mirrors. In contrast, companies like Minolta/Sony, Pentax and Olympus simply could not and cannot equal Canon and Nikon in this area.
Apparently you don't know that minolta holds the record for the fastest shutter speed. 1/12 000 on the 9xi. I don't think Canon and Nikon ever matched that.
Frank_BR: Canon 7D: 10 fpsPhantom Flex: 10,000 fps
It's clear to me that the mechanical parts of a camera are with their days numbered. In a few years the cameras will be fully electronic, and will take hundreds or thousands of high-resolution pictures per second.
" thousands of high-resolution pictures per second"That implies extremely short exposure time. You'll need some mighty powerful light to achieve that.
Oh no! More skin smoothing!Examination of all the available images on the image comparison tool show that it works by smoothing away texture. Hair on arms disapear, fruits appear to be made of plastic, and skin... well, it's airbrushed to anormalcy. And white or black dots on green just disappear.If it catches up, I'm afraid texture will become a thing of the past on most images on the web.
migus: Nice shots, some have serious labor behind them..!My picks
3: Drama of the primeval forces that have shaped Earth and brought life upon it.5: Painting-like, albeit too cropped on the LHS (probably for a good reason).1: Street-like shot for the venue... the lions seem not to bother anymore about drones (noisy!), except the 2 cubs. Perhaps they see more drones daily than us :-)4: Weird background, is it a museum canvas shot - or why the shades?2: Interesting composition.
4: it is not shade as we usually think of it, it is the result of the birds changing position during a very long exposure. The flash captured them at a different place, but the time they spent in one place during the exposure blocked the light from the sky at that place which result in a darker area in the shape of the bird.
As the camera grows older, its close focus ability will decrease and it will eventually need close-up lenses.
munro harrap: I disagree with the assessment of 2004 (the 1Ds MkII) as THE moment. Great camera, but no. So far nobody has equalled the realism film brings to photography- not even the latest generation of 36MP sensors- except Hasselblad and medium format.
The colour is still inaccurate. It is VERY inaccurate. Its actually rubbish compared to what we see. All machines still oversaturate and all machines have LCD TV reds oranges and blues are always overdone.
Are manufacturers colour blind,since it is possible in post-production to get much more accurate colour.
If this can be done, then the corrections should be applied in camera- the sensors colour balance should be corrected in-camera. Only then can any real progress be made, but it is not even being attempted.
There is no such thing as "the realism film brings to photography". When selecting a film, you would select it for the color rendition, contrast and grain structure that you wanted to see in your pictures. (There were tens of color positive, negative as well as black and white films to chose from) And you would process it according to the little or huge tweaks you wanted to apply to what you already expected to get. (push or pull processing, cross-processing, or other variations) And if you shot c41, then the processor would mess everything at the printing stage, unless you asked the shop not to correct your prints, in which case you would have the "constant-from-one-print-to-the-next" standard colors cast of that particular machine on that day, on all of your prints.In other words, film was anything but realistic.
aandeg: Olympus, Panasonic, Fuji better start upping their game. Gorilla in the house.
The failures at DSLRs might likely be the failures at mirrorless.
@aandeg"They failed twice before, third time the charm?"
Care to explain how and when Panasonic and Fuji failed at DSLR?
Ruy Penalva: May be this new model can focus better than the old one. I had the old one and almost all of my shot (telephotos) were under-focused when 100% amplified.
Most of my shots were "almost" focused correctly when I had canon gear. Sometimes the focus was slightly behing target, sometimes slightly in front. Very rarely spot on.Now with Fuji, all of my shots are 100% perfectly focused on the target. I'm so never going back to Canon.
kakman: Am I the only one who thinks it's silly to have different types of card slots? This means to use both I need to have two types of cards - CF and SD - who wants to do that? Surely it makes more sense to have two slots the same. It just seems like a really weird 'feature'.
Other than that it looks good - but not greatly better or worse than lots of other cameras coming to market.
Having a body that big means you have a lot of internal space to keep prehistorical features like CF card interfaces. There used to be good reasons for having a CF card slot but they evaporated half a decade ago. Big companies love to hold on to their glorious past.
Kim Letkeman: Same sensor, same lens. Not much new in this model it seems where IQ is concerned. But I'm surprised at the struggle with tack sharpness in these images. The second statue is backfocused, none of the portraits have truly sharp eyes / eyebrows ... is it really that hard to lock focus on the subject with the X100T? Note: The baskets are nice, but that's rather a large target in a fairly flat plane :-)
The struggle with tack sharpness as you say is motion blur : the photographer was using a shutter speed slightly too slow for his capacity to remain still.
atone2: Totally uninteresting before Fujifilm get rid of the ridiculous x-trans filter array. One must be blind not to see the awful rendering of x-trans rawfiles, especially in Lightroom. My original X100 still has much better IQ than the newer models. Money saved, wooha! :-)
Atone2, try the jpegs someday, you may be surprised. And if you can manipulate curves, you can probably tweak your jpeg to taste with no ill effect on quality whenever you want something different.As for shooting the 135/2 on the 5D, I get the same effect by shooting the Nikon 85/1.4 (cream machine) on my X-A1. Yes, yes, I wish it could AF. But when I show the pictures, only I know that it doesn't.Oh, and did you know that the X-A1 actually has a bayer sensor? You have no more excuse ;)
EssexAsh: not quite flogging a dead horse , but come on, how much more can they drag this sensor out.
But I hate changing computer just to keep up with the megapixels overload.
TangoMan: Will it smudge the skin and make it look orange, when shooting jpeg at 6400 ISO? That is the question... I hope the public outcry was heard from their offices.
Seriously, I see you everytime I come to this forum. You can't be unaware of what I am talking about. The X-A1 definitely doesn't have the problem exhibited by the X100s, X-E2 and X-T1.
Daniel, I have to disagree with you, maybe because I set Noise Reduction to -2.When I say "smudge", I don't say the world lightly. It describes pretty well the X100s treatment of skin colored objects at high iso. It's not across the image, it's a engineering decision to smooth out the faces of people, but in an excessive manner over which the user as no control in Jpegs.