X-E1 vs X-T2: IQ Test with 90-2

X-E1 with 90-2: photo of the X-T2 with 16-1.4. To pixel peep, click the image to zoom in. Tripod: 4 sec, f/5, ISO-200. RAW converted to JPG. No editing or cropping. Size 4896 x 3264 pixels, horizontal and vertical resolution 240 dpi. Bit depth 24.

X-T2 with 90-2: photo of X-E1 with 23-1.4. To pixel peep, click the image to zoom in. Tripod: 4 sec, f/5, ISO-200. RAW converted to JPG. No editing or cropping. Size 6000 x 4000 pixels, horizontal and vertical resolution 240 dpi. Bit depth 24.

Preliminary thoughts: The primary difference is image size: 6000 x 4000 pixels for the X-T2 vs. 4896 x 3264 pixels for the X-E1. Short of actual large prints, though, this size difference seems to be irrelevant. Zooming in on these images, both are tack sharp. X-T2 has better DOF and a slight edge on resolution. Bottom line is that the X-E1 offers excellent IQ potential.

Posted in Fujifilm, Fujinon, X-E1, X-mount lens, X-T2, XF lens | Leave a comment

First Shoot with Fujifilm X-E1 – Young Street (Revised)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

X-E1 Arrived This Evening 8/16/17

X-E1 with XF35mmF1.4. Photo taken with X-T2 with XF23mmF1.4 (20.0 sec at f/8.0, ISO 100) on a tripod. RAW converted to JPG, cropped but not edited.

Photo taken with X-E1 with XF35mmF1.4 (15.0 sec at f/8.0, ISO 200) on a tripod.

After a long and grueling search, I decided to get an X-E1 as a backup for the X-T2. It came down to size, price, battery and lens compatibility with the X-T2, and bang for the buck. For me, it was like the X100T with interchangeable lenses. I found one used, body only, for under $300. I haven’t had a chance to field test it yet.

It’s slightly taller than the X100T with the other dimensions about the same. It’s solidly built but light. I like the layout of all the controls and the fact that it has all the basic features that I’ve come to expect of an X camera. Pictures don’t do this camera justice. It actually looks a lot better in real life.

It’s default language on arrival was a foreign script (Arabic?), but I was able to switch it to English even though the menu was in that language. It rejected the XF56mmF1.2 and instructed me to update the firmware. The latest is Ver. 2.61. After the update, it took the 56mm. I haven’t tried the other lenses yet.

I imagine using this primarily with the 23mmF1.4, 35mmF1.4, and 56mmF1.2 for low-light in-door gatherings. None of these are weather sealed. As a backup, it could also be used outdoors with all the other lenses.

Initial surprise: The shutter has a loud thunking sound. I hope this is normal. Thus far, I’m more than pleased. Will be testing this out in the next few days.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Quick Test of the XF90mm F/2: Can It Do More Than Portraits?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

First Shoot XF16-55 F2.8: Ala Moana Center on Kapiolani Blvd. 8/6/17

Photos taken with the Fujinon 16-55mm F2.8 lens on the Fujifilm X-T2 on 6 Aug. 2017 from 6:56-8:21 AM. The shoot focused on the Kapiolani Blvd. side of Ala Moana Center in Honolulu, Hawaii. All shots are converted RAW files that were edited and cropped in LR.

Ala Moana Center is the 7th largest shopping mall in the U.S. and the largest open-air shopping center in the world. It’s consistently ranked among the ten most successful malls in the U.S. and, in 2009, was ranked by U.S. News & World Report as America’s 2nd most profitable. (Wikipedia)

Thoughts on the XF16-55mm: I shot handheld throughout. AF is quick and on point. IQ is superb and invites cropping and enhancing in LR. But as many have said, this lens is heavy. Still, when IQ is critical and switching primes is not an option, this lens is invaluable.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

16mm Focal Length Test of XF16, XF10-24, and XF16-55

Last updated 08/12/17

These three Fujinon lenses were tested on the X-T2, handheld: XF16 f1.4, XF10-24 f4, and XF16-55 f2.8.

JPGs from the three lenses at 16mm focal length, SOOC, were cropped and placed side by side.

Results: According to conventional wisdom, the 16mm prime would produce better results than the two zooms. Also, based on reviews that I’ve read or seen, I’d assume that the 16 and 16-55 would outperform the 10-24. But in this test, under the same conditions, all three performed equally. I found it difficult to tell them apart.

Discussion: At other focal lengths and under different conditions, quality may vary, so this test is by no means definitive. I’ve field tested the 10-24 quite a bit, and I’ve only begun to test the 16, but my initial shoot with the 16 tells me that it’s IQ is better than the 10-24. Compare the Ala Wai Boat Harbor (16mm) video with the First Shoot with XF 10-24mm and Old Plantation-style Houses (10-24mm) videos. I have yet to field test the 16-551.

Implications: A tentative conclusion is that the 10-24 can hold its own against the 16 prime and the 16-55.

1 Field tested on 8/6/17. See First Shoot XF16-55 F2.8: Ala Moana Center on Kapiolani Blvd. 8/6/17.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

X-T2 with XF16mm F1.4: Ala Wai Boat Harbor

First shoot with the Fujinon XF16mm F/1.4 lens mounted on the Fujifilm X-T2. Location: Ala Wai Boat Harbor on 1 Aug. 2017.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment