X-Pro2 is happen thanks to area third grader after his tour of the Fujifilm factory.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Image Width 668 Image Height 509
Unless it's full frame, I don't even care.
>>2726697
Sick copyright infringement
>>2726701
>APS-C and Full frame are the same.
Not in my experience.
I want two things from Fuji that would basically guarantee my eternal loyalty:
1) Full frame X-series camera (X100F? YES PLEASE)
2) Serious Instax camera
They'll do neither, though, which is why they'll always play second fiddle to third tier manufacturers.
>>2726704
Shut up, angelbaums.
>>2726704
I think they're not willing to sacrifice their very well deployed lens lineup and elegant form factor for minimal to no gain in IQ from a full frame sensor.
There is no reason fuji would release a full frame camera right now, they are building up their APSC lens lineup.
>>2726704
Instanflex TL70 from Mint is quite serious, not cheap tho.
I would buy one if Fuji made B&W and faster film.
>>2726701
It's like saying 35mm and 645 are the same.
They're not.
What is the same is your ability to get good pictures, 645 won't make you a better photographer the same way ff won't make you a better photographer.
>>2726699
I think they should go for medium format.
>>2726704
I sold all my full frame Canon gear to use two X-T1s and their incredible lenses for my full time photo work. Sounds like your opinion defines the world though.
(Pro tip, files from Fuji's 16mp sensor have a lot more information in them than anything you can get from any Canon)
>>2727080
> files from Fuji's 16mp sensor have a lot more information in them than anything you can get from any Canon
This is bullshit.
You're comfortable working with your Fuji gear and that's great, but it doesnt make Canon FF suddenly shit.
(Yes Canon APSC is much worse than Fuji APSC, but even here... I use Canon APS for all my nightlife work and I've never had issues with it. Bottom line is that in reality all bayer sensors made in the last 6 or so years will give you all you need for great photos. People have worked for decades with 35mm films much worse than the sensors you find today in an old ass 7d, a Fuji sensor will be better, but in the end what matters is what do you like working with.)
>>2727089
>This is bullshit.
No, it's not. Fuji's files are barely compressed at all, and have a much broader range of exposure information due to the type of sensor (iso-free)
Fuji 16mp raw files are larger than many 24mp FF files.
>>2727089
Nothing in your post relates even a little bit to the point at hand, which is that Fuji crop images have more information and latitude than Canon full frame.
Also, with Fuji f/1.4 and f/2.8 lenses being priced pretty similarly to full frame f/1.8 and f/4 lenses, the DOF advantage isn't even really a factor either.
>>2727080
I'm just saying, I get way more information out of my full frame nikon than I do out of my X100s.
>>2727135
thats not a full frame canon, is it?
>>2727135
resolution isn't what he means by information.
you can push a 200 iso fuji file to 12800 iso and it'll look just like you'd actually shot it at 12800.
You can do this with Nikon to a degree too, and you can do it with Canon to virtually no degree.
>>2727164
>No, it isn't, but the guy was originally replying to my post and trying to say that my experience was inconsistent with the world's.
It is. Canon sells more cameras than Nikon. There are more Canon shooters than Nikon.
You're blinded by your own world view.
>>2727166
I think you're getting a little off track there, bud.
>>2726704
There already is a serious instax, it's called the Fotorama FP-1
Also camera manufacturers should do better than incremental updates to older models, Fuji, Y U pulling a Canikon with the updated model?
>>2727123
>>2727125
Alright please give some hard stats to this and if its a meaningful difference. Otherwise we're all back to the same old pic of the Pentax K-5 pulling more stops from underexposure than the 5dII.
All I'm saying is that I don't really think what you guys are claiming has an effect on the "real world".
>>2727135
X100s isn't APS-C though
>>2727182
Yes it is.
>>2727179
That doesn't shoot Instax, it shoots peel-apart, right?
>>2727181
The k-5 vs 5Dmk2 photo is all you need. Why do you need more than that?
If you've ever tried to edit your photo in the "real world" and have two comparison files, one Canon, and one Sony, you've seen it.
>>2726697
New MacBook Pro and Fuji XPro-2 at the same time right after Christmas!
Fuck my wallet. Might just get an X-T1 and be happy.
>>2727228
> Why do you need more than that?
Because it really never saw any real world difference. If that pic meant anything then you'd see an avalanche of people switching over to Nikon - since they all share Sony sensors. It didn't happen, many pros switched to Canon somewhat recently, in fact.
In the end sensor tech is a little stagnant, if you want a total paradigm shift you switch to Foveon, anything else is same-ish enough that what really matters is how you "feel" shooting with the camera.
For example I assure you that MOST people aren't switching to Fuji for the sensor, but because they deliver an excellent shooting experience. Its not something you can easily put into words, but I did hold and try a friends X100 for a little time and its a camera that makes you... happy, I guess, the instant you hold it. It's a bit like the Alfa Romeo of old times, it's an experience more than a car.
>>2727231
People don't buy cameras for the image quality you get for the sensor. They buy cameras for lenses, ergonomics, and most importantly, marketing. People see guys on the sidelines with white lenses and decide "Pros shoot canon" and they buy canon.
The difference is very real, and I'm telling you that I, personally, see it every day. many many people see it. And the rest of the people are like you, who have just never tried it. You can't do half a dick with a Canon file. You can do nearly anything you want with a Sony file. It's a fact. If you don't process, or you don't care about major editing, then no, there's no difference for you personally. But that doesn't mean there's no difference.
>>2727061
Shit, I'm proof of that.
LF didn't make me a better photographer lol
>>2727233
>marketing. People see guys on the sidelines with white lenses and decide "Pros shoot canon" and they buy canon.
God so much this. My friend has this exact attitude. No matter how impressed he is with the photos from my X100S it's still "but pros shoot Canon I don't understand"
There's a reason people buy CaNikon, its not because of the fucking sensor, it's because everyone else uses it.
>>2727233
>People see guys on the sidelines with white lenses and decide "Pros shoot canon" and they buy canon.
I think its more of "a lot of people have canon I'll buy canon", I wasn't talking about that part of consumer shit but more about pros using canon, so they're not influenced by this, but by having a camera that works better in their hands.
And while canon has fell behind on sensor tech, I think their pro cameras handle much better than nikons for general use.
>You can't do half a dick with a Canon file.
You can do LESS, but still a lot, still more than any photographer could ever hope to do with 35mm film, which is why I'm saying that this difference isn't really THAT important...
>>2727230
>yfw the new Macbook Pro STILL doesn't have a 4k display option or an option for a beefier GPU, the 750 is bottom of the barrel and can barely even do 1080
>>2727252
I only use the 13" so I'm lost on the GPU front anyway. Also I'd consider bombing an Apple store if they started putting in 16:9 panels into MBPs. 16:10 screens are 85% the reason I switched to Apple.
>>2727233
>You can't do half a dick with a Canon file. You can do nearly anything you want with a Sony file.
2 stops. That's the difference.
>>2727260
Actually it's like 1.7.
>>2727260
Citation or nah?
>>2727260
Literally 4 times the light. It's a big difference.
>>2727322
is English not your first language or are you just retarded?
>>2727256
By 4k I meant 3840x2400, but I want to see a 4k display because their pixel density on their phones and laptops are lagging behind the competition, though what I do want to see is them use a matte display. The 13" only has an integrated GPU, the 15" ones have a dedicated Nvidia card that's horribad and seems to be used more for GPU-enhanced productivity than video editing
>>2727256
For what purpose do you prefer 16:10?
>>2727365
Not the same guy you replied to, but for productivity it's awesome. It's much easier to fit multiple, taller windows together on a 16:10 screen
>>2727345
Right. That I understand. I'm fine with what is currently in their 13" screens right now, however, more is always better!
>>2727365
Pretty much all purposes. I hate 16:9 for anything other than video. On a 13" screen 16:9 is hell. It's fine on bigger screens like 24"+ when it's right in your face or on a big TV, but 16:9 on a small screen or average desktop monitor is fucking hell. The extra vertical space is so so nice to have when working. I work at a prominent visual effects studio for film and guess what we use; it's not 16:9. Pretty much all professional monitors for colour accurate work are 16:10 and here's a reason for it. When working on videos the extra height is super useful. It just so happens that it's super nice for everything else too. Notice how pretty much zero tablets are 16:9?
Shot sucks for anything but watching videos and playing games.
take the macbook shit to /g/, we're arguing FF vs APS-C here.
>>2727986
>foolframe vs apc
>not that much of a difference
How about I remind all you foolframe faggots what "fullframe" really is.
This camera will make your pee pee small.
So I've been playing around with my fuji raw files a little more because of this thread, and I'm starting to think that there's actually something to this whole "ISOless" meme. There's some really impressive recovery (though not limitless) going on in these files, and it's making me rethink the way I should use my camera.
>>2728046
>needing to see it yourself to believe its not a meme
you're whats wrong with this board
>>2728214
Lol k
>>2728046
I shot astro at base iso on accident one night. Pushed it to 3200 in post. Looked passable.
Canon is kill.
>>2728214
I wish everyone would believe everything I said all the time. I might be anonymous but you should know by now that I'm the all powerful always correct Jesus of photography. look at me, wah!
