Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10
 on: May 04, 2016, 07:08:54 PM 
Started by RPark - Last post by Paul2660
I picked up the X-Pro2 as soon as they hit B&H, coming from the X-T1, X-E2 and X-E1. 

Overall the camera has been a positive experience for me, I am not a fan of rangefinder cameras, but it was the only test the 24MP chip.  Also I have since learned that Fuji has two different image processors (at least 2) one for the X-Pro series and the other for the X-T1, E1 & E2, so I wanted to see if there was a lot of differences.

Positives for me:

1.  The camera has excellent AF, and the joystick really adds quite a bit to control.  It's very easy to change to focus point with the camera up to the eye.
2.  All the controls that matter are on one side, unlike the X-T1 which allows you to do everything involving image review to be done with one hand, I prefer
     over the X-T1 style.
3.  Resolution and noise are very good up to around ISO3200, after which the quality of the file will suffer especially if pushed in lower light
4.  Capture One has done a good job on the raw conversion and from initial testings LR may have worked some magic also as I don't find the plastic strange
     look to raw conversions that I am so familiar with on older Fuji's with LR
5.  DR in the ISO 200 to 2000 range is very impressive, and the files have a ton of malleability (raw)
6.  By far the best set of buttons I have used on Fuji, the tactile feel and feedback when pressed is excellent
7.  Layout of the menus is very good.
8.  The totally reworked shutter is also a great addition, quiet and 8FPS is plenty.  AF tracking is still something I am working with.


1.  NO tilting screen, so for me this eliminates some style of shooting I like to do with Fuji's mainly Macro.  At my age, it's just easier to tilt the screen instead
     of bending down.

2.  Smallish grip, for me
3.  No battery grip, which is most unfortunate as the battery life of the camera is considerably less than my previous Fuji's
4.  Battery life, pretty bad, and from my use, the battery percentage indicator is pretty worthless, as most of my cells die with 44 to 35% showing left, and
     all of them are the Fuji brand.
5.  Instant AF, in Manual mode, seems to have an issue at least with my X-Pro2.  Images are consistently a bit softer when I use this in M mode, over standard
    AF in S mode.

It's a joy to use, the images are exceptional and the newer AF system with the huge number of AF points on the sensor is excellent.  Not a big fan of the optical, but the EVF is very good and gets the job done.  Still can't manually focus any of the Fuji cameras, not sure why, as I can easily focus Nikon, Canon, or even Phase One, but on the Fuji, I will never get the image quite as sharp in manual mode.

With the X-T2 around the corner, I will most likely go forward to it, but there are certain aspects of the X-Pro2 that I like over the X-T1, and if Fuji would come out with a higher milliamp battery, I could use the camera at night, but for now the current cell is only going to run about 1 hour on a continuous shoot, not enough for me.

Paul C

 on: May 04, 2016, 07:05:26 PM 
Started by LesPalenik - Last post by LesPalenik
IMHO, Topaz 'Clarity', and 'Detail' are must-haves for bringing your images to life, and if one requires such things, 'Remask' is pretty good.

'Denoise' is also one of the better denoising programs, alongside NeatImage and Noise Ninja which are also good but more expensive especially over time.

I am in 100% agreement with Bart about his most frequently used plugins, I use them also all the time. However, it seems that when using both, Detail and Clarity on the same image, sometimes they fight each other, so now I choose one or the other, but not both. Maybe there is a method to use effectively both in the same image, but I find that either one improves the apparent contrast and pop.

Also, in the last year I have started to use the artistic filter Impression on some images. This plugin contains over 600 effects, ranging from B&W pencil and charcoal sketches to oil and watercolor treatments. I use mainly their oil and impasto filters, sometimes to a quite interesting and striking effect. For sure, this is not everyone's cup of tea, but I find that in some cases the abstract and blurred interpretation may result in a more appealing picture than the original sharp photographic image.

There is another similar plugin, called Simplify which overlaps somewhat with Impression, but Impression is a more substantial and feature rich program.
Both plugins can be found here: Topaz Labs Store

As an example, attached is one of my Havana images, followed by three different Topaz Impression renditions.


 on: May 04, 2016, 07:04:15 PM 
Started by Alan Smallbone - Last post by Tony Jay
Sorry to hear about your travails Alan.

Nonetheless, what you have produced with your mobile devices is stunning!
If you have any other images please post them.

Tony Jay

 on: May 04, 2016, 07:03:27 PM 
Started by dwswager - Last post by BernardLanguillier
It turns out that even though the D500 is a crop sensor, it still outperforms the 1DX2 in low ISO dynamic range:

A very impressive camera from Nikon.

This is very impressive considering that the 1DXII appears to be one of the 2 first Canon bodies with "improved sensor technology". On the other hand, as written many times, the high end sport bodies are more about high ISO image quality and AF than about improved low ISO sensors since very few people use them at low ISO considering that there are other bodies that are much superior (5Ds or D810). The intersting comparison would be btw their AF capabilities.

As far I am concerned, I may replace my D750 by a D500 in order to get more tele reach... and better low ISO DR than my D5. Combined with their soon to come next gen 200mm f2.0 E FL this would be hard to beat combo for the daytime part of my festival shooting. ;)


 on: May 04, 2016, 06:54:52 PM 
Started by mseawell - Last post by churly
I enjoy the movement as well.

 on: May 04, 2016, 06:51:21 PM 
Started by churly - Last post by churly
A couple of shots from a a few hours of entertainment by the river. 
I do enjoy the ice season for photography but it is good to feel a bit of warmth in the air.

 on: May 04, 2016, 06:50:14 PM 
Started by RPark - Last post by RPark
Years ago I read an article looking at the angle of view in classic paintings and they noted that often the so-called normal would require an 85-105 mm lens and the wide view would be covered by a 40 mm lens. I do plan to get the 16 mm lens in the future but so far, wide is the 23mm (roughly 40 mm equiv) lens.


Yes, I also require a wide-angle, and since my favourite has always been 24mm on 35, I also would like to get the 16mm.

 on: May 04, 2016, 06:44:30 PM 
Started by RPark - Last post by David S
Years ago I read an article looking at the angle of view in classic paintings and they noted that often the so-called normal would require an 85-105 mm lens and the wide view would be covered by a 40 mm lens. I do plan to get the 16 mm lens in the future but so far, wide is the 23mm (roughly 40 mm equiv) lens.


 on: May 04, 2016, 06:42:58 PM 
Started by RPark - Last post by RPark
Raymond, I am looking forward to your review. There are some reviews on the X-Pro2, but it seems to me most are "predisposed" to liking the camera and are part of a large Fuji fan base. Nothing wrong with that, I like my Pentax too. But it would be nice to see some truly new camera switchers give their opinion on the new Fujis. A switch is a big investment, and in the end I may have to borrow or rent one for a while.


My cursory review and photos are up (linked in OP). I actually wasn't predisposed to like Fuji, going on the mixed experience I had with my first Fuji camera -- the S2 DSLR. But after testing the X-Pro 2, I was sold. There's a few cons, as mentioned in my review, but the image quality is superb and the design mostly well done. I'm not yet ready to jump up and down with joy, mostly due to what may be my own slow learning curve with the menu. We'll see.


 on: May 04, 2016, 06:41:56 PM 
Started by Patricia Sheley - Last post by Rand47
Were you actually soft proofing using the Mac notebook's  (I believe it's a MacBook Pro 17 inch - meaning it's relatively old) monitor?  Shouldn't it be done on a calibrated monitor?  How well can you calibrate a MacBook Pro's monitor?

Jeff used the laptop for ease of demo purposes, I'm sure.  I've heard him say before that he doesn't do any "color critical" work on the laptop.  His commercial studio digital processing room is something to behold with several high end monitors. 

Having said that, working with a calibrated "anything" display is certainly better than "not," I suspect.  Some laptop screens calibrate quite nicely - though their color gamut is less (usually more or less sRGB) and the evenness of illumination usually suffers compared to high end monitors.


Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10