Official Fuji X-Pro 2 thread

twist said:
Looks good till you realise that you need to compare it a stop higher than other APSC cameras to get the same exposure at top ISOs. ;)
Click to expand...

Still getting one, you're negativity towards fuji isn't gonna put me off ☺
 
So when the Fuji says ISO 6,400 it is equiv to ISO 3,200 on other cameras? Does it apply at the other end? Lowest native of 200 is really 400? Has it been tested on this version of the x-trans sensor?
 
Hmmm.... xifs for the DPReview studio jpegs @ ISO 3,200 show the Nikon as 1,600th at f5.6 while the Fuji is at 1,000 at f5.6 which backs Twist up. I think :)
 
Down at ISO 200, the Fuji is 1/60th whereas the Nikon is 100th. Mind you the Fuji shot looks a tad brighter on my monitor.

Of course, it could just be down to a stop or so difference in the light between sessions.
 
paulcamcas said:
So when the Fuji says ISO 6,400 it is equiv to ISO 3,200 on other cameras? Does it apply at the other end? Lowest native of 200 is really 400? Has it been tested on this version of the x-trans sensor?
Click to expand...

At the higher end it's around a stop, under 3200 I think it's 2/3 stop from all the tests I've seen.
 
paulcamcas said:
That makes sense. Puts me right off.
Click to expand...

It's frustrating but the system is still strong because of the fast lenses. More annoying when max raw was 6400! Wish they had sorted it tbh. but it seems it's a consequence of design. Still likely I'll go for another xt1 though.
 
Yep, some very attractive lenses. I find I need ISO 100 or even 50 for some of the studio stuff I do so Fuji are out for now.
 
paulcamcas said:
Yep, some very attractive lenses. I find I need ISO 100 or even 50 for some of the studio stuff I do so Fuji are out for now.
Click to expand...

I think there are better studio cameras available but they do deliver, you just need to see what lovegrove achieves.
 
Yes, but with Damien much of it in the lighting. He could produce stunning work with a Barbie cam. Not my taste mind you but that's not his problem :)

Edited because I've just seen his work with the X-Pro 2 and it is very much to my taste.
 
Last edited:
manualfocus-g said:
I thought that DP Review take account for Fuji's dodgy ISO numbers now by pushing images in post? If I click on the comparison tool it shows that the images have the same settings applied (with the Fuji being pushed in pp to give the same exposure):

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/retro-through-and-through-fujifilm-x-pro2-first-impressions-review/7

Are they linking to different RAW files by mistake? :confused:
Click to expand...

Ah got it, they are underexposing RAWs and then pushing them, but not JPEGs.
 
Just like film speeds used to depend on development, so do Iso settings.
Fuji prefer settings the way they give them and process them. They certainly achieve stunning results that way.
While you can ignore their advice, using the Iso they give achieves the results that they are famous for.
I see no point in worrying about some theoretical differences.
There is nothing dogy about this.
 
Last edited:
paulcamcas said:
Thanks, I didn't know they did that.
Click to expand...

It makes for a much better comparison, so well done to DP Review I guess. Whether anyone is really going to deliberately under exposure their shots and push later, just so the camera performs more like another camera, remains to be seen :)

It does look like the new sensor is at least 1/2 stop better than the old one though, which is great news. The old 16MP sensor is not the greatest, and Fuji's baked in noise reduction at the highest settings (in RAW) are a bit of a pain. It looks like the new sensor doesn't suffer this problem, and as a consequence images look sharper (to my eyes).
 
They don't do any thing to make it perform like another camera...they do as they do, to produce the best possible results.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Just like film speeds used to depend on development, so do Iso settings.
Fuji prefer settings the way they give them and process them. They certainly achieve stunning results that way.
While you can ignore their advice, using the Iso they give achieves the results that they are famous for.
I see no point in worrying about some theoretical differences.
There is nothing dogy about this.
Click to expand...
That's a good way of looking at it and I'm not thinking any dodginess is involved.
 
manualfocus-g said:
Going back to the slightly negative Polish review, Fuji Rumors (who are deffo not biased ;)) reckon they reviewed the camera using a RAW converter (DCRaw) which doesn't support X-Trans III, hence the results (http://www.fujirumors.com/fujifilm-x-pro2-reviews-the-good-the-bad-or-rather-strange/). Who's telling the truth? We need Mulder and Scully! :D
Click to expand...

Are they biased? I've not really ever seen a biased review by lenstip. They just post what they find... unlike bloggers who don't get paid or discounts and do it out of the kindness of their heart. O rly.

If they weren't using compatible software then they need to retest. But then you're posting a link to a guys site that has absolutely no motives or affiliate links on his site ;)
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Are they biased? I've not really ever seen a biased review by lenstip. They just post what they find... unlike bloggers who don't get paid or discounts and do it out of the kindness of their heart. O rly.

If they weren't using compatible software then they need to retest. But then you're posting a link to a guys site that has absolutely no motives or affiliate links on his site ;)
Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant Fuji Rumors might be biased. They seem to enjoy their Fuji gear ;)
 
When push comes to shove does it actually matter?

End result is what counts and whether or not the buyer is happy with the output

I wouldn't buy a camera based on a set of test photos shot at a particular iso.
 
Last edited:
paulcamcas said:
That's a good way of looking at it and I'm not thinking any dodginess is involved.
Click to expand...

Well not until you use 2 different cameras in similar conditions and expect the same exposure. Or wonder why you used to get away with x exposure in y conditions.

Like I said, it's not a deal breaker for me... just something for people to be aware of when changing brands and specifically asking about iso, which was the case.
 
Last edited:
The big Fuji X conspiracy:

Fuji X photographer - Right off review as being totally biased.
Non Fuji X photographer who doesn't find fault with the camera - Right off review as being a suck up trying to become a Fuji X photographer.
Non Fuji X photographer who finds fault with the camera - Right off review as not having the correct raw converter/Talking b****x.

Beginning to see a trend here! :LOL:

:exit:

trustnoone.jpg
 
CScottMcQueen said:
The big Fuji X conspiracy:

Fuji X photographer - Right off review as being totally biased.
Non Fuji X photographer who doesn't find fault with the camera - Right off review as being a suck up trying to become a Fuji X photographer.
Non Fuji X photographer who finds fault with the camera - Right off review as not having the correct raw converter/Talking b****x.

Beginning to see a trend here! :LOL:

:exit:

View attachment 58059
Click to expand...

Buying a new Fuji = Risky business.
 
CScottMcQueen said:
The big Fuji X conspiracy:

Fuji X photographer - Right off review as being totally biased.
Non Fuji X photographer who doesn't find fault with the camera - Right off review as being a suck up trying to become a Fuji X photographer.
Non Fuji X photographer who finds fault with the camera - Right off review as not having the correct raw converter/Talking b****x.

Beginning to see a trend here! :LOL:

:exit:

View attachment 58059
Click to expand...

I forgot to mention that most of the Fuji-X photographers also shoot with ma-hoo-sive MF cameras when the pressures really on.... :whistle:
 
Just got an email from WEX, expecting stock tomorrow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top