Mode: Grace C.Q.A.
According to fujirumors, Fuji is coming out with a SLR-inspired mirrorless camera based on the Fujica ST design.
First of all, I have no idea why mirrorless camera makers are making cameras that look like SLRs. The point of the hump is to put the pentaprism in it. Mirrorless cameras don’t need the ugly hump, unless the EVF requires a lot of space.
Many Fuji users agree Fuji should stick with the rangefinder design. I agree. If Fuji wants to do a Fujica ST design, then they should make it with a mirror. They should do what Nikon DF tried to do, but do it right.
Here are the rumored features of the new body:
All those are fine and dandy, but I don’t care of about any of those except for the better EVF. The EVF can never be too good. But you know what else they should have? An ISO dial. I hate diving into the menus to get to it.
The original Fujica ST has a dial on each side of the camera. The left one should be ISO. The right one should be shutter speed. And where the film advance lever was, put the exposure compensation dial. There you go, nice and minimal and closely matches the design of the Fujica ST. Also, the shutter speed and ISO dial should go 1/3 stops instead of full stops.
Also, they need to have tethering support. Then it can be seen as a real-deal pro camera for fashion and commercial photographers. Sure, the newer X-cameras have WiFi, but it only works with Fuji’s apps. It should be able to tether to Lightroom, Capture One, and other software.
Honestly, when I saw the glimpses of the Nikon DF, I was ready to dump all my Fuji gear and move to Nikon. I would’ve bought the Nikon DF with the Nikon 58 f/1.4 and be done with it.
Luckily for Fuji, Nikon screwed up. Like I said earlier, Fuji should do what the Nikon DF tried to do. Fuji should just slap a mirror in their new camera and create a big, bright, optical, viewfinder (along with an awesome EVF). But they should make it the same size as the original Fujica ST. Is that possible?
So would I get this new body? I don’t know, maybe if they did everything I wrote here. Even then, I’m not sure.
Currently, I’m 95% happy with my X-E1. It’s sluggish though. It feels “old.” But the image quality is nice. The X-Trans II isn’t going to improve my images much. So what’s the point ? I learned to keep my GAS in check after I got buyer’s remorse when I upgraded my X100 to X100s.
Mode: Grace C.Q.A.
Model: Ashley M.
So the Fuji XE-2 has been released. So far, I’m not impressed. It doesn’t seem like a huge upgrade to the XE-2.
The only feature I like is Wi-Fi because the X cameras have no tethering feature. At least the Wi-Fi helps somewhat. But I haven’t heard if you can WiFi RAW files directly to Lightroom.
The AF won’t be much faster, especially for me. I learned this when upgrading from X100 to X100s. I use the outer AF points often in when I compose my images. So I don’t take advantage of the PDAF. The XE-2 will be the same. So for me, I wouldn’t see a big difference in AF. Heck, even when using the middle point, I get super fast AF once in a while, not all the time.
The new sensor won’t make a difference in IQ. Besides, the biggest change to IQ would be Adobe fixing their ACR to work with the X-Trans files better. Using both Iridient and Lightroom are too much trouble. Also, when I dealt with some Canon’s RAW files recently, I realized how crappy ACR handled X-Trans. It made me consider changing systems.
The ergonomic stuff they added are a nice to have, but not important.
So I won’t be upgrading to X-E2. My decision to upgrade to X100s was a mistake that I won’t make again. I’ll look at X-Pro2 or X-E3 instead. Hopefully, they’ll be a game changer.
What would I want? Well, I would like more AF points, faster AF. Real tethering capabilities, better EVF (retina screen quality), and a better sensor that Adobe can work with.
Sony A7 and A7r.
These cameras look awesome, but like in true Sony fashion, they come out with mediocre lenses to go with the camera. Come on, a 35mm F2.8? Couldn’t they give us a F1.4 at launch like Fuji did? Anyway, besides the lack of lenses at launch, these guys can become a player later when their lens lineup gets some fast primes.
My friend wanted me to take some maternity shots of her. I don’t like maternity shots. They all seem cheesy to me. They all consist of cheesy poses like hearts on their bellies, husbands kissing stomachs, etc.
I found out though, I don’t have to “do” a maternity shot. I just have to take a nice portrait of my friend who happens to be pregnant. That’s all.
I currently use Lightroom. I have heard of PhotoNinja and Iridient being good with X-trans files. I wondered how much better? So I tried them out.
This is a quick review of the 3. I don’t have 100% zoom images detailing the difference, yet. But as of right now, after using PhotoNinja and Iridient, the conclusion is that ACR is crap for X-Trans.
Since I mainly shoot human subject, I’ll compare them for portraiture. Iridient seems to pull out more details compared to the other two. I think PhotoNinja and ACR pulls out the same amount of details. For skin tones, Iridient wins again. PhotoNinja comes in second and ACR comes in third.
To me, as of right now, Iridient is the best RAW converter for the X-Trans sensor. But I’ll keep using Lightroom. Why? I like having a speedy workflow. And Lightroom has more features compared to the other two. And I would need 3 programs to process my photos: Lightroom to catalog, Iridient to convert RAWs to TIFF, and Photoshop to post-process everything.
Besides, if I switched to Iridient tomorrow to process my RAWs, no one will know. No one is going to say, “wow that skin tone looks really good compared to your old stuff.” So I’m sticking with Lightroom. It’s bad compared to the others, but good enough.
Then again, Iridient is cheap, so maybe I’ll try to incorporate it into my next workflow and see how it works.
Model: Katie the BJJ Blue Belt
Location: Veritas Gym in Dalton, GA
Camera: Fuji X-E1 35mm f/1.4