tlinn: And still no History palette. I will never understand this omission. There is no downside to this feature. If you don't need it you don't have to use it. Even plug ins have History palettes these days.
(continued) As far as variants being ridiculous, I didn't say that. :-) I was trying to convey that creating a variant every time I thought there was a chance that I wanted to step backward to a particular point in the editing process would be inconvenient and leave me with a confusing collection of virtual copies to manage and delete. It's just a much more cumbersome process than being able to click back and forth on a concise list of edits.
I appreciate the thoughtful response, noirdesir. I think that you are correct in speculating that you are making fewer adjustments to your images. I also wonder if you aren't making one adjustment per tool and then moving on. This would make it easier to tell where you are in an "undo-only" workflow. I often tweak a single setting multiple times. That makes taking bigger steps backward in a single click much more useful to me. It also makes it harder to tell where I am without a History palette.
I'm still struggling to understand the connection you are making between the order of adjustments and the usefulness of a History palette. When I'm using LR's History palette to step back multiple steps, it is often to compare different settings of the same tool. For example, vignetting. I may try four different settings. I find it very useful to jump immediately between any two settings to see an immediate A:B comparison. There are other ways to do this but none are as fast or convenient.
I'll give you three reasons why it is valuable to me:
1) It is a way to learn the behavior of an editor by stepping through a list of all your edits and seeing the visual results.
2) I work iteratively. I'll try different ideas. I'll build on them. It is not unusual for me to wish to compare the current state of an image versus how it was four or five steps earlier. If I knew in advance that in five more steps I'll want to make a comparison then, yes, I could create a variant. But that is *never* the way it works. I don't follow formulas. Even if I did, creating a variant is a ridiculous inconvenience if all you want to do is compare two different states of an edit.
3) A persistent history of edits on a particular image is helpful at a later point in time when I want to go back and see how I created a particular look. Yes, I could look at every single setting on every single control. Seeing a complete list of all the edits made to the document since it was imported is much easier.
It is factually wrong to argue that the equivalent functionality of this feature is available through workarounds. Variants, for example, is a useful feature but not as a substitute for a History palette. At best, it is a kludge. The parametric nature of C1 is completely irrelevant. And suggesting multiple uses of the Undo command as an equivalent is completely missing the point of how the History Palette can be useful.
And still no History palette. I will never understand this omission. There is no downside to this feature. If you don't need it you don't have to use it. Even plug ins have History palettes these days.
rhellie: I was fortunate enough to join Michael on his second Antarctic expedition. It was one of the best adventures of my life thanks, in large part, to Michael's incredible organization. He was one of the most kind and generous people I have known. His enthusiasm for travel and photography was infectious. I am going to miss him.
You were fortunate. That is something I've always wanted to do, specifically with Michael & co, but could never quite swing it.
marc petzold: My deepest condolences for Richards Family, i've read the luminous landscape since around 2003/4 online, very good reviews...and he wasn't really grown old. Richard also "invented" ETTR. Really loved the reviews, YT videos, and his Luminous Landscape Site. Michael would leave a deep hole. RiP Michael.The good ones all leave too early. A very sad Day today. :-((
The Contax N Digital - a legend itself, the Luminous Landscape had one of the very few, really serious Reviews & samples for this (at that time being) only avialable Worlds 1st FF DSLR, it's Philips 6 MP FF Sensor had issues, and into the End it brought much to it that the famous Contax Brand died. Love my C/Y lenses.
The Contax N AF Lenses can being used on eMount for instance with the -very expensive- Fringer Mk. III Adapter (Contax N Mount, with AF)
Reichmann popularized ETTR after a conversation with Thomas Knoll who shared the concept with him, IIRC.
Michael will be missed. He made a huge contribution to photography.
tlinn: As an Oregonian I don't have a horse in this race but having spent plenty of time in both states I can think of no photographic justification to leave California for Idaho. California is a photographic wonderland with prime opportunities for just about every kind of photography. Idaho is pretty...in places. The best thing about it IMO is that you are only short drive from Oregon or Montana.
Now if Michael justified his move with a concern about taxes, cost of living, a scarcity of water, the impending big one, or any number of other things I would have nothing to say. But photographically there is nothing Idaho has that California can't better.
Fair enough, Michael. I'm glad the move has been successful for you.
As an Oregonian I don't have a horse in this race but having spent plenty of time in both states I can think of no photographic justification to leave California for Idaho. California is a photographic wonderland with prime opportunities for just about every kind of photography. Idaho is pretty...in places. The best thing about it IMO is that you are only short drive from Oregon or Montana.
bluevellet: XT1 killer... until the XT2.
@Peter I agree with you. That said, if not for the lack of the articulating LCD, I would consider buying an X-Pro2 while I wait for the X-T2 and then keeping it as a backup body. The X-T2 would be my preferred body for most thngs but I could see the HVF as being very useful when shooting my son's sporting events. Perhaps there aren't enough people like me to justify the added cost.
justmeMN: $1,699 for body-only. Mirrorless enthusiasts say that mirrorless cameras cost less to manufacture than DSLRs, but that doesn't seem to be reflected in their prices.
Your overall point may be valid but you picked a bad example to prove it. This body offers a very specialized viewfinder that is expensive to make. If the viewfinder adds no value for you, then the body may not be worth the asking price for you. There are many who cherish that style of viewfinder and would probably pay more.
The other factor to be considered is how many of these bodies Fuji expects to sell. If it is the niche product that many believe, the price has to be higher to make it an economically viable product.
justinbacle: The thing is that no one reviewed the X-T1 after the firmware updates, which is a shame because the video mode is very close to the one in the X-PRO2.
Amusing video anyways :)
X-T1 firmware upgrades did much to improve video functionality but nothing to improve video quality. To call the quality of X-T1 video "bad" is to insult the concept of bad. It is unusable for even casual documentation. The video in the X-Pro2 is competitive in the world of 1080p video, which is all that someone using this style of camera body is likely to ever need.
I've seen a number of slideshows from this media tour. Yours, Barney, has been the most interesting. The bit about using cement cured with UV light to secure the lens elements in place was particularly noteworthy. I hadn't read that elsewhere.
The image of the lens engraved with "X 5th Anniversary" is one I've seen before. Is that a one-off or special edition of the 18-55?
forpetessake: It's a shame camera and lens assembly is so labor intensive. Automation is essential -- it reduces cost and improves quality.
I've often thought the same. This workflow explains any copy-to-copy variation that might occur.
The Name is Bond: I love Fujis, but with the high prices and weird feature absences (no RGB histogram?!?!? FFS) plus customer manipulation (plastic skin textures on the 2nd gen high ISO jegs, denied by Fuji), I would jump ship but for one thing.
There's no getting around the fabulous portrait OOC jpegs that are a combo of fuji skin tones, autoDR, and wonderful jpeg engine. No need for RAW (in fact I can't get as good in RAW as I can in fuji jpeg).
Even Lightroom's Fuji modes don't come anywhere near the OOC jpegs. I did try, ladies and gents, since the plastic textures on the 2nd gens were a deal-breaker.
Thanks goodness this camera doesn't have the plastic texture issue because I was stuck. But it's time for fuji to get their finger out of their collective butts and give us an RGB histogram. I need to go lower on the ISOs to get a decent 4K image but I would then be troubled by blow-outs, particularly in the red channel. ISO 400 does not reach 4K except when shot in portrait orientation.
@veritalens Not being snarky here. I'm wondering if you understand that an RGB histogram shows clipping that a standard histogram would not. Point your camera at a red wall and a standard histogram may show an underexposure even though the red channel is clipping. If you do understand this—and I suspect that you do—then your comment confuses me. Histograms are a tool to improve IQ. An RGB histogram is a better tool. Why is it wrong to want that? It's not like we're asking for pixel re-mapping, a relatively obscure (but highly useful) feature. We're asking for a feature that is common on other $1700 bodies.
Tim McClanahan: If they truly believe "still imaging and video are merging" (and I absolutely agree with that), then their lack of video features is really confusing. Fuji has a huge history of video experience. Why that's not translated into these cameras is quite beyond me. If they want to compete with Sony on the APS-C front, I'm sure they have the experience (and support network!) to do so with mirrorless video. The Sony a6100 will show us Sony's commitment to APS-C, so that's probably a good reason for them to wait - but they can't wait much longer. Sony is #1 in mirrorless video from a pro standpoint. With Canon & Nikon's lack of commitment to this market, now is a good time for Fuji to step up to the plate and put all their video & lens expertise into play, before Canon & Nikon wake up.
I'd -love- to see cine versions of their current lens lineup.
I think your comment could just as well be written, "If they truly believe 'still imaging and video' are merging...then their choice of the X-Trans CFA is really confusing," because that's what it comes down to. Clearly they perceive X-Trans to be an advantage in terms of stills and they are willing to take the hit in video IQ to use it.
That said, I wasn't aware of Fuji's history with video beyond lenses. I would be surprised if they had the type of extensive history in video that Sony or Panasonic can utilize in designing video products.
eazizisaid: Coming from the mouth of the Director Mister TT, the difference between the XT1 & XP1 :
The XT1 is for sport nature and wildlifeThe XP1 is for street photographers !
That's one bad answer.
This was a really enjoyable read, Barney. I too was struck by the omission of Sony as Fuji contemplates the number 3 spot. Though I don't disagree about the lack of quality Sony lenses, it seems excessively optimistic to imagine Sony falling behind Fuji in terms of market share. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see Sony pass Nikon in this metric. I was also a little surprised by their candid assessment of Samsung ILCs—not that I disagree.
There are those, myself included, that worried that Fuji might not be able to keep pace with technological advances in camera bodies. I'm not sure the verdict is in yet but the X-Pro2 sure looks like it should allay those fears to a great extent. It's not just megapixels; it's an overall refinement of features and functionality in the new body that has been missing in earlier products. It leaves me really excited for the debut of the X-T2.
There was a time, pre-rental scheme, when I thought of Adobe as a paragon of what corporations should be. Now they get as little of my money as I can manage—a version of LR every 18 months or so.
DanteRecknagel: I have always hated sony products dating back to Betamaxand DAT. They have been the most locked down proprietary systems in electronics history yet, I am glad they are in the camera business even though I don't like their cameras? Why? Because they can force Canon and Nikon to persue thinner margins and actually compete both on pricing and specs. Canon and Nikon have been complacent and overpriced for WAY too long.
I agree--but only to a certain extent. Speaking of Canon, I really haven't seen very much movement in terms of pricing or innovation in response to Sony. Perhaps in the high-end compact market. But I think Canon will eventually have to respond or find themselves left behind. Sony's sensor tech is amazing but I prefer to access it through a third party as I don't have much confidence in Sony's commitment to their customers.