Let's get real here: if you are using any other brand than Fuji, you are a fucking idiot. Not only do their cameras consistently produce the best images, but they are also the only manufacturer that does not skip on genuinely innovative technologies like Velvia (no, its not the same as using a filter, because its already in the JPG the moment you take a photo). Once Fuji finally buys out Sony, which will be sooner rather than later considering how much money Sony is loosing, they will also be able to start producing consistently better sensors that they will not sell to their competition like Nikon.
Question: how do you convince people not to buy inferior technology?
>it's the fujifilm retard again
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 200 dpi Vertical Resolution 200 dpi Image Created 2013:08:01 13:51:58 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1250 Image Height 1250
>>2826431
>it's a sonyfag falseflagger trying to shift the shitposting against fuji
ftfy
>>2826436
There is literally nothing that you can do other than minimize the thread and let it slide off the board. You will never stop him. Just look at the way he writes. He's obviously playing a character, and any reaction or reply at all is the only thing he wants. Just let it go.
>>2826429
Why not try to sway people by filling the thread with your beautiful photos taken on a Fuji camera, showing off its great color rendition, fantastic detail, and low profile sneakiness?
>>2826437
Literally double standards. I am so glad I've stuck with Canon through the years and didn't join your Fujifilm cult train.
>>2826436
>Literally "blame the jews" level of reaction.
It's really not. Not in this case.
>>2826443
>join your Fujifilm cult train.
Wh... fucking WHAT?? How is "let the shitty fuji thread fall off the board because it's clearly retarded" related to a "fuji cult train"?
Also, what is Sage
>>2826445
>Also, what is Sage
History.
>>2826443
>I've stuck with Canon
I'm so sorry, no one should have to live like that.
>>2826446
Sage still works to keep from bumping a thread.
>>2826447
>implying for a second hipsterfilm has shit on the standard for pro photography
I rest my case on the cult statement.
Please fuck your ass
>>2826450
>choosing minor differences in performance over fashion
Fantastic thread. Literally immediately drops into a fit about Sony and how OP is not real. Should have called it "/p/ are idiots", OP.
>>2826457
So /p/ is slightly more aware than you hoped? Or... what's the complaint?
>>2826461
>he's so aware he does not notice that it's a new post
LMAO
>>2826464
It's a conspiracy. Goes all the way to the top. ;-)<[o]
>>2826465
>;-)<[o]
Nice Mamiya. Post more emoji of it.
I know this thread is bait but as a fuji owner I could really do with some better video quality in my x-t1
>>2826431
>>2826435
It's the same diehard troll trying to bait people into pointless arguments. Fuji and Sony people take the bait more easily so he focuses on them.
The old rule stands here, don't feed the trolls. If you don't reply he will give up and go away.
Remember, the brand doesn't mean much, how you choose and depict your subjects matter a lot more.
ITT: people don't know how to sage and keep bumping this thread to the top
>>2826881
I'm mewfag. How to sage?
>>2826840
Pretty much everyone replies when you tell straight up lies about their equipment. It just happens that one guy happens to show up and lie about Fuji a lot, and so Fuji owners seem to come to correct him, without realizing that all he wants is to get into it with them.
Hey Fuji owners; he can't make your gear look bad with his words if you're busy making your gear look good with your photos. Also, who cares? If he says it's shit, and you know it isn't, what's the harm? Maybe someone on the board doesn't buy an X-E2. Doesn't affect you. Let it go.
Let's get real here: if you are using any other brand than X, you are a fucking idiot. Not only do their cameras consistently produce the best images, but they are also the only manufacturer that does not skip on genuinely innovative technologies like Y (no, its not the same as using a filter, because its already in the JPG the moment you take a photo). Once X finally buys out Z, which will be sooner rather than later considering how much money Z is loosing, they will also be able to start producing consistently better sensors that they will not sell to their competition like B.
>>2826927
/sci/entist here, I noticed your argument was a particular case, so I generalised it for you.
Cool leica op
>>2826431
>>2826437
>implying there's not more than fuji and sony cuck
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Created 2016-04-28T17:44:13+01:00 Flash No Flash Function Image Width 844 Image Height 148
>>2826996
No, there's just one sony idiot who stirs shit for no reason where it makes no sense (like starting a thread pretending to be a wannabe alpha Fuji user, or pointing to a photo taken on a fuji camera saying "Man, it's lucky you got it in focus" etc) There are multiple Fuji users who reply with corrections to flat out false statements, and a few Sony users who who up after the fact to say that they don't mind their a6000.
>>2826429
I bought an x100s and when the files are good they're really good but honestly it is the worst camera I've ever used. The LX3 from 2008 I have is more enjoyable to use.
Feels like someone brought a bunch of modern tech back to 2004 and asked them to make a camera with it.
>>2827004
In what way?
>>2827005
It's mind numbingly slow and some of the settings make absolutely no sense. For example, if you want to be able to focus in low light you need to turn real time metering (or whatever you call it when the EVF gives an exposure preview) off in the display settings, but then the histogram becomes useless because it gives you the exposure of the EVF, not of your shot. Otherwise the camera will not focus unless you've chosen the exact correct exposure (useless if using flash or any other exposure other than what auto would have chosen.)
So if the sensor needs to use ISO 1600 to give a viewable scene through the EVF but your exposure is set to ISO 400 for the shot, the histogram will show the exposure level for the 1600 setting. Not sure if this is generally common for mirrorless but again, my old ass LX3 doesn't do this.
X Trans gives nothing but slower RAW processing and shittier files unless you have a Mac and buy irridient to convert or just use OOC JPEG.
And again, the camera really is astoundingly slow. Like when people say "it's not that bad" its the cognitive dissonance speaking because they spent $1000 on a camera which really is all that bad.
>>2827011
>It's mind numbingly slow
Mine isn't. It's no slower than any other camera I've owned. It's no slower than my 5Dmk3.
>if you want to be able to focus in low light you need to turn real time metering (or whatever you call it when the EVF gives an exposure preview) off in the display settings
This has no effect on mine whatsoever. Mine focuses fine with exposure preview on.
>So if the sensor needs to use ISO 1600 to give a viewable scene through the EVF but your exposure is set to ISO 400 for the shot, the histogram will show the exposure level for the 1600 setting.
I have never noticed this, since I preview exposure in the EVF, but I just tried it out, and yeah, that's dumb. Agreed.
>X Trans gives nothing but slower RAW processing and shittier files unless you have a Mac and buy irridient to convert or just use OOC JPEG.
Well it gives you the sharpness of no AA filter without the drawback of Moire... but if that's not beneficial to you, then okay. You can still get Capture One, Photo Ninja, etc. on PC to deal with the raw files.
>And again, the camera really is astoundingly slow. Like when people say "it's not that bad" its the cognitive dissonance speaking because they spent $1000 on a camera which really is all that bad.
No it isn't. What are you talking about that it's slow? Like turn-on time? Write speed to the card?
>>2827011
Oh and manual focus implementation, despite being advertised as a strong point, is really bad. Focus is by wire and bad. Split screen focus sounds great but is unusable unless you have thirty seconds to focus and your subject is a stationary lamp post.
>>2827015
What's wrong with the split image focus? Works well for most people. Seems to look fine in this video
https://youtu.be/_fJDX1hzUIg
>>2827014
>This has no effect on mine whatsoever. Mine focuses fine with exposure preview on.
Has to be in low light with an exposure different from camera determined "correct exposure", I might notice it more because I use flash very often so I commonly shoot scenes the camera thinks is underexposed. If the real time metering is on the camera will flat out refuse to focus.
>Well it gives you the sharpness of no AA filter without the drawback of Moire
Seems like this was advantageous when xtrans 1 came out but by now other sensors are delivering the same results without the hassle.
>No it isn't. What are you talking about that it's slow?
AF speed. Unless your subject is stationary or posing, using AF under f/8 will lead to missed shots other cameras will nail.
>>2827017
And don't get me started on OVF power saving mode...
>>2827017
>Seems like this was advantageous when xtrans 1 came out but by now other sensors are delivering the same results without the hassle.
Like what?
Trop d'outils tuent ton œil
>>2827016
I'm not that guy, but in my experience, it doesn't work as well for stuff that's like 8-20 feet away, especially in low light. I was trying to focus on my stupid fucking cat the other night, and while the split image said she was in focus, I was actually just about two feet short. Very frustrating, but not really a deal breaker since I have it set to the very capable focus peaking instead.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:04:28 11:44:13
>>2827017
I never had any complaints about the AF on my X100s, other than in situations where every mirrorless camera available at the time was struggling.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Color Space Information sRGB
>>2827026
Low contrast scenes with low contrast subjects in low light are difficult for real split prisms though as well. That's why you have a bunch of other focusing aids, like the ability to zoom in on your focus point with the press of a button, or glowing edges, etc. Tough to blame the camera when you're using it the wrong way.
Until very recently though, pretty much everyone has agreed that focus performance on Fujis was the main stumbling block they had. Usually the complaint is about AF, not MF, but hey, strokes for folks.
>>2826429
Let's get real here: if you are using any other brand than Sony, you are a fucking idiot. Not only do their cameras consistently produce the best images, but they are also the only manufacturer that does not skip on genuinely innovative technologies like Bionx X (no, its not the same as using a filter, because its already in the JPG the moment you take a photo). Once Sony finally buys out Fuji, which will be sooner rather than later considering how much money Fuji is loosing, they will also be able to start producing consistently better sensors that they will not sell to their competition like Nikon.
Question: how do you convince people not to buy inferior technology?
>>2827035
>Tough to blame the camera when you're using it the wrong way.
lol okay. i already have all that other shit turned on and use it. i'm just pointing out that the split focus doesn't work great in every single situation. way to get your panties in a twist when i'm one of the biggest advocates of the x100s on the board.
>>2827036
utter nonsense
>>2827037
My panties aren't twisted at all... I stated a fact, not a judgement of you. The original assertion was that the x100s is bad for it, when in truth, the actual statement should be "split prism focusing is bad in low light with low contrast, regardless of what camera it's on, since you need a contrasted line to know whether you've lined up your halves"
Generally, when people complain that a Fuji isn't good, it's because they're not using it correctly, or bought a street camera to be used as something else, so it's important to mention, in a thread where a guy is complaining about the camera.
>Hey let's go eat at my favorite restaurant follow me
>Oh we can't eat here it's gone.
>What did it close?
>No, it's GONE.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Color Space Information sRGB
>>2827042
Well, you or someone else posted a scenario where the split image works like a charm, when it was really just a high contrast subject at a close distance. literally any camera and focusing system would nail that and doesn't really justify the existence of an additional MF aid over focus peaking. i was merely pointing out that it's really not that effective in other situations, and doesn't really "work for most people".
>>2827042
Not that guy but actually split prism is especially bad on this system because of focus by wire and because the critical point where everything lines up is a bit hard to see on the EVF even in high contrast.
It's nothing like split prism on an SLR, so your assertion that the system is bad because of split image focusings general limitations is false. It feels nothing like a real split prism with mechanical focus, it just feels like a gimmick on the x100s.
>>2827049
"Most people" don't manually focus at all.
Should it have said "Split prism focusing works well in situations where split prism focusing would work well"?
>>2827052
>It's nothing like split prism on an SLR
In what way.
> because the critical point where everything lines up is a bit hard to see on the EVF even in high contrast.
Looks fine on mine, and I'm in a room where I need ISO 1600 for a hand-holdable shutter speed. Why not use your phone camera in your VF to show us your difficult to see high contrast scene?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Color Space Information sRGB
>>2827054
Yeah, probably, and then we would have agreed that it should be relegated to the 80's like the crusty old relic that it is.
>>2827055
>in what way
Focus by wire plus it's just not as clear as a real split prism OVF. it's a pure gimmick, it has no advantage over traditional MF aids.
It's just not quick or accurate when you have to deal with the mushiness and uneven responsiveness of the x100s focus by wire ring. I suppose this would hold true for all MF in this camera though.
But come on, I honestly can't believe someone who's really used a true split prism OVF could equate it to Fujis implementation. It's night and day.
>>2827062
The implementation of FBW is annoying and mushy (It's not 1984, why are you MF anyways) but the split prism is unrelated to that. The EVF on the X100s is great, and in a situation where you'd have good visual acuity with an SLR, you have a good representation on the EVF. The split prism does its job just as well as any other implementation anywhere else. The problem is, split prism focusing isn't very good in a LOT of situations. It's not the X100's fault.
I've always wondered why they haven't done a true digital rangefinder patch in the center of the frame. It would probably be hardware intensive, but it would be really neat...
I assume there's some limitation I'm not aware of, but using the same math that lets the split image work (distance scaling) you could overlay a second bit of the center of the frame in a different color... I'd use that.
(I'm lying, I probably wouldn't use that)
>>2827066
>but using the same math that lets the split image work
The split image works with phase detect, not distance scaling.
>>2827067
Yeah you're right, I just couldn't think of a term for it. Do I understand the technology wrong to think that PD could be applied in a way that would allow for a rangefinder patch?
Offering that on the XPro and X100 line is so obvious, I assume there's a reason they couldn't. Either my lack of understanding of the tech required, or some license they'd have to pay for...
>>2827066
>(It's not 1984, why are you MF anyways)
Speed. I need the shot to fire when I hit the shutter, not an eternity later. As a result I spend a majority of my time with the x100s zone focusing.
Regarding the rangefinder, I agree. I can only imagine it would be pretty laggy though. Not sure why Fuji doesn't just go straight Leica ripoff and give us a ~$1000 rangefinder with mechanical focus.
I had a go on that 'electronic rangefinder' thing and it was more like a split prism.
Video.
>actually having brand loyalty
>in current year
there is no serious photography brand on the market that makes bad cameras
any competent photographer could make the best out of any of them
brandfags are not competent photographers of course, which is why they obsess over this crap
it's like a toy leica lol like those minor replicas or something lol
>>2827114
except you get usable image files straight out of the camera, in comparison to leica.
>>2827091
Yep. I'd love to get one, but the video on them is so terrible I wouldn't be able to use it.
>>2827116
Why is this a benefit? Literally who doesn't post process in this day and age besides photojournalists who would be using a faster, more capable dslr anyway.
>>2827226
People who get the exact image they want, straight from the camera...
You HAVE to process because in-camera processing is shit. Except not with Fuji.
>>2827270
m8 i own a fuji and i get so much better photos out of the raw it's not even funny. you're just gimping yourself for the sake of a gimmick.
>>2826429
Let's get real here: if you are using any other brand than Pentax, you are a fucking idiot. Not only do their cameras consistently produce the best images, but they are also the only manufacturer that does not skip on genuinely innovative technologies like R I C O H G R (no, its not the same as a dslr, because its so small and pocketable its already in the the moment you take a photo). Once Pentax finally buys out Fuji, which will be sooner rather than later considering how much money Fuji is loosing, they will also be able to start producing consistently better R I C O H G R's that they will not sell to their competition like Sony.
Question: how do you convince people not to buy inferior technology?
>>2826429
>>JPG
lel
>>2827279
>I overprocess my files and everyone else should too
Ok
>>2826429
4/10
Actually
3/10
>>2827365
>i don't know how to post-process so i just let the camera decide lmao
ok
>>2827370
>i don't know how fuji film simulation work, i'd rather overprocess a raw file
http://fujifilm-x.com/en/x-stories/the-newest-film-simulation-acros/
>>2827394
Lmao
>>2826429
series question: what is the most reputable camera brand out there? I'm thinking canon
>>2827427
>reputable
That's a big word.
Cannon is the one with more fanbois (market share), so it's obvius that more people think it's the more reputable.
If you average the reputability given to a brand by it's customers only between the number of it's customer base, Idk wich one it will be.
I have bad time explaining myself and spotting baits.
>>2827427
Canon makes crippled cameras but their support is great so when it comes to reputable it might be up there.
If were going for overall prestige, Nikon probably.
Leica is a big contender but their service&repair division is pants-on-head retarded mismanaged
>>2827450
Crippled? Hardly. But still lagging behind NIkon and Sony, yes. Their glass is among the best, though. Their Mark II lenses are all superb.
>>2827454
>Mark II
enjoy your plastic lenses
>>2826429
this is 9gag tier trolling
As someone who shoots a DSLR and mirrorless systems side by side this idea that Fuji is all you need is beyond stupid. Don't get me wrong for a hobbyist or for some forms of paid work the Fujis are great but they simply cannot at this point in time replace a Nikon/Canon set up for a working professional who has to shoot lots of different styles on any given week.
Some people are fighting about the film simulations and while I don't shoot JPEG on either system I will say using the profiles in Lightroom does give me a better base to work from than my Canon and editing time is reduced but the time gained is minimal.
Another major limitation of Fuji is the video mode, something that as a freelancer I have been paid extra quite a few times to capture and if I only had my Fuji kit would simply not be able to. Battery life is sub par but I will say the XT1 gets closer than the x100s does to my 5D.
Lens, flash, 3rd party ecosystem is years behind.
I recommend Fuji for your travels, some paid work but honestly if you only have the cash for one system go Nikon or Canon depending on what lenses you need.
I do believe in the next 15 years all of my work will be done on Mirrorless/Digital median format but for now Sony/Fuji are in no place to replace Canon/Nikon, stop with the brand loyalty and use whatever gets the job done.
>>2827479
Why would you not? Does doubling the weight of your equipment for no reason somehow improve your photos? Or are you still in 1957 where plastic is still not super durable?
>>2827394
Oh, look, it's the magic Fuji filters again.
>>2827480
Yet it brought out defensive Fujifags regardless and lead to solid 84 posts thus far without me having to do much more.
>>2826429
> (no, its not the same as using a filter, because its already in the JPG the moment you take a photo).
I can't believe you're falling for this bait.
sage
>>2827688
Yet there are people arguing for the same thing on this very board every day.
>>2827427
Mamiya. Since Contax/Yashica is gone.
Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fujifilm, Olympus, Panasonic, Leica are all trash. Anyone who disagrees with this is a joke and should consider cleaning lavatories for a living.
The x100s are very friendly looking cameras and are packed with lots of functionality for the stills photographer who works within certain fields of photography. If you want many options while not looking like a photographer and carrying a monster dslr around, they are your best bet (even better the xpro cameras of course).
They are built well and feel great in use. They are of course not the best tool for everything. If you are in a position where you take any assignment from portrait to architecture to product photography, you are 100% better off with any dslr system. As for me, using fuji streamlined my shooting, made me more considerate in terms of how the camera itself is best when it completely vanishes between me and the subject and most importantly : it taught me the value of pre visualization. Switching often between optical and hybrid viewfinder with relatively constant settings made me realize that the ability to pre visualize what I would get after I press the shutter is one of the most important skills. I could train myself by looking through the optical viewfinder first, then trying to pre visualize the result if I press the shutter and then compare with the optical viewfinder. This instant feedback training is great if done right. After some time you can forget the electronic viewfinder, except if you dial in a completely new look to your picture.
You might say that you can get the same thing by looking at the lcd screen after taking a picture, but it's not comparable. The immediacy of a high resolution hybrid viewfinder is breathtaking. If you want to try it, set a camera with hybrid viewfinder to black and white and look around through the EVF.
I am a wedding photographer who uses Fuji, and although I accept AF needs improving, it is totally useable in such a professional environment provided the photographer is skilled and fast-thinking. If you are a slow-minded individual, you need a fast camera to compensate.
>>2827514
I think your response was wasted on what's mostly a troll thread, but it was a good one and I agree with most of it.
I'm a Nikon FF shooter who has an X100, and I really like the Fuji way of doing things. I'd absolutely consider a full switch if Fuji could get their performance on par with Nikon/Canon, but it's just not quite there yet, especially when it comes to AF and off-camera flash.
Lenses don't bother me too much, I could rebuild my core kit with Fuji glass (and maybe Zeiss for the wides) for about what I have into my Nikon setup.
Video also isn't an issue for me, because I have a dedicated camera for that. (Canon XA20, which is much better for my use than a DSLR/MILC would be.)
So yeah, not quite there yet but I'd say a switch will probably happen in the next five years for me.
Cannon oldfag reporting in
>>2831393
Samyang make a great 12mm f2 for x mount. It's sharper at F2 than the Zeiss 12mm is at f2.8. I recommend it.
Yep most likely trolls but I'm stuck at home with a flu so meh I'll roll with it haha
>>2831397
I'll look at the Samyang if I actually switch. I have their 85 1.4, so I know how great their glass is, and MF isn't a big deal at 12mm.
The thing I really need to decide on is a 35mm equivalent, since it's by far my most heavily used non-tele FL.
>>2831405
I love my 23mm f/1.4
>>2831408
>>2831405
The 23 1.4 is killer, honestly. Extremely sharp. Works amazingly on the XT1. It's a fat lens though, there's finder blockage on the X-pro and it's pretty weighty compared to other Fuji lenses. I highly recommend it.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-Pro1 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.4 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 35 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 797 Image Height 1200 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:03:21 23:46:34 Exposure Time 1/900 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Brightness 8.0 EV Exposure Bias -0.3 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 23.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 847 Image Height 1250 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Hard
>>2831405
The 23 1.4 is fantastic it's a better lens than what's on the Fuji X100s but I still prefer the shooting experience on the X100. A rumoured but very likely lens coming soon to X mount is a 23 F2 with weather sealing, that's what I'm holding out for in terms of a 35.
>>2831408
>>2831516
>>2831522
Well that seems pretty universal. How do you guys feel about wide open sharpness with it? I'll probably be shooting for as shallow of a DoF as I can and I'm already taking a hit vs. my 35 1.4 on FF, so being able to pull good sharpness at 1.4 would be nice. (I do a lot of events where I'm shooting 3/4 or full-length portraits and need the background separation.)
Finder blockage isn't really a big deal. As much as I like my X100's hybrid VF, I think the XT2 will be the best option for me when it comes out.
>>2831673
I shoot 3 main systems for work, Canon with 24-70, 70-200, 16-35, 85 1.2 and 50 1.4 Fuji with 12mm f2, 35 1.4, Fuji x100s, 55-200 and I have borrowed the 23 1.4 and the 56 1.2 and finally a phase one 40 with 3 lenses (rent not own) the 23 is as sharp as the Zeiss and L stuff I use for phase and Canon no problem.
>>2831673
It's plenty sharp wide open. Fuji lenses are designed so that you don't have to stop down to get maximum sharpness. Pic related, my 23 @ 1.4.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1150 Image Height 773
>>2826429
enjoy your moire, aliased, no dr video.
>>2831963
now do it at infinity
>>2826429
>because it's already in the JPG
stopped right there, even though i should have stopped reading after the pretentious bait of a subject line
>>2831984
Not sure what this is supposed to mean. If I was focusing at infinity, I probably wouldn't want to be shooting at f 1.4. And even if I did, the only benefit to shooting at 1.4 (bokeh) wouldn't be too great because it's a wide lens, and anything closer than say 50 feet would be out of focus. If you're saying you would want to be shooting in low light at 1.4, I can say that this lens is very sharp throughout the focus range, as far as I can tell. I'm on mobile at the moment so I don't have any examples, sorry.
>>2831963
That looks pretty good. I think I'll be happy if I can match what my Sigma Art 35 looks like at f/2 on FF.
While we've got a bunch of Fuji guys here, does anybody have the 50-140? Replacing the performance of my 70-200 is the other big hangup I have about switching. I don't shoot ball sports or wildlife, so I don't need insane AF, but I do some auto racing and at least need to be able to keep up with the relatively predictable movement of a race car when doing panning and head-on shots.
>>2832245
I've got one. I use it on an XT1 and XPro2. I love it. It's really great at every focal length and aperture. AF works well too. Nice and zippy. Stabilization works very nicely.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-Pro2 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 210 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:03:23 17:07:28 Exposure Time 1/3200 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness 9.2 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 140.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2832251
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-Pro2 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 99 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:04:13 22:03:14 Exposure Time 1/640 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Shutter Priority ISO Speed Rating 500 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness 6.0 EV Exposure Bias 0.7 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 66.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2832253
AF in low light on an XT1
It's supposedly better on the XPro2 but I don't notice it.
Either way, it's one of the best AF lenses you can get for the system.
>>2832267
I know, it's a shame. Even some of the later ones have hunting issues in middling to low light. You can certainly make do with most situations with all of them, but in low light, or with fast moving subjects, you really want the newest crop of lenses. Which are certainly not cheap.
>>2832270
>TFW 16mm 1.4
>>2832270
I own the 35 1.4 and borrowed the F2 from a friend, I shot both side by side for a week and I must say the F2 is faster but never to the point where it could get shots my 1.4 could not. I did a portrait session and some stuff in a skate park with it (XT1). I would say get the 35 1.4 and get the 23 wr f2 when it comes out. I'd rather 1.4 on my 50 than on my 35.
