Tag Archives: choice

Reader Question: Fujifilm X100vi, XPro2, or…

From time to time folks contact me with photography questions. If the question seems like it might be of interest others I like to answer here. Today I will respond to one of those questions.

“PJ” writes:

I mentioned that I’ve followed you on the FM site and have had a look at your website. 

I know you are/were a big fan of the X-Pro2. I have one with a 35mm f1.4 which I use to toss in the backpack or take on a walk around town. For heavy lifting, I have a full set of Nikon gear. 

I may have a case of GAS, as I’ve been seriously considering replacing the X-pro with a Fuji x100vi. Advantages seem to be a smaller, lighter camera, 40mp sensor, IBIS and newer technology. I guess I could get a pancake lens for the x-pro to make it smaller but I’d lose some of the advantages of the x100vi.  I’m not so interested in a new camera with interchangeable lenses, which would rule out some of the other Fuji offerings. 

My original message to you was to pick your brain and see what suggestions/advice you might have and if you have any opinions on the x100vi. 

Look forward to hearing back from you. 

I’m glad to share some thoughts on that question, PJ.

Bottom Line Up Front

The Fujifilm X100vi is a very attractive camera, as long as its pluses and minuses align with your needs and expectations. The X-Pro2, though a few ears old, is arguably the best camera in Fujfilm’s X-Pro series and is more adaptable. There are also some other options if you want something the same size with updated features and flexibility.

A Slightly Longer Summary

As I see it, there are three options, each with its own set of pluses and minuses.

The X-Pro2 is still a good camera. While its sensor is a bit older and has less resolution, my experience tells me that it makes great 20″ x 30″ prints. It is a full-featured camera that accepts interchangeable lenses, giving more options if you want to use something other than (or in addition to) your current 35mm f/1.4 lens.

The X100vi is an appealing camera that strikes a chord with users who like the old fixed-lens, manual control aesthetic and appreciate its small size and very good image quality. It also has image stabilization, which can help when shooting with longer shutter speeds in lowe light.To get those things you sacrifice some flexibility.

Other cameras could be good compromises, too. I like the XT5 with its small size (about that of the X-Pro2), ability to use any Fujifilm lens, upgraded 40MP sensor, image stabilization, and other functional improvements. The tiny XE4 (if you can find one!) equipped with the 27mm f/2.8 pancake lens is as small and light as the X100vi, and it accommodates any Fujifilm lens.

All of these are attractive options that can make fine photographs. The trick is matching each option’s pluses and minuses to your own circumstances. (My choice was to move from the X-Pro2 to the XT5 for the higher-resolution, small size, access to more lens options and various other improvements.)

The Full Story

This will be a bit long. The question opens up related questions: is a fixed lens camera the right thing? Is an older camera still sufficient? Are there alternatives to both of those options to consider?

I’ll start with some background for readers who may not be as familiar with these cameras as PJ is.

Continue reading Reader Question: Fujifilm X100vi, XPro2, or…

Photographic Myths And Platitudes — Diffraction Limited Aperture

It has been a while since I posted an article in my “Photographic Myths And Platitudes” series — so here is a new one! It is a bit different than some of the previous posts in that it is based on something I wrote elsewhere in response to a lengthy (and long-winded!) discussion that suggested hyper-awareness of the so-called diffraction-limited aperture

What is the diffraction-limited aperture, you ask? It is a real thing — not a myth — though it is sometimes over-emphasized by overzealous techno-photographers.  In simple terms, as you stop down a lens its potential maximum resolution declines as a result of diffraction blur. (Keep in mind that other factors affect sharpness, too. Also, this happens to every lens, from the cheapest to the most expensive — it is a universal optical phenomenon.) At some aperture, the increase in blur becomes significant enough, in a technical sense, to be more of a “limitation” on image sharpness than the ability of the sensor to record detail — e.g. the “number of megapixels” of the sensor. A simplistic interpretation of the concept suggests that a photographer should avoid other apertures in order to “get the sharpest image.”

As with many things in photography, it isn’t that clear-cut.

Now on to my original post. It is a bit technical, though I think most photographers should be able to follow it — and I will conclude with some simple, straightforward practical advice. (And here I remind readers that sharpness is not the most important, much less the only important thing in photography. Far from it!)


Sharpness, or at least the perception of sharpness, is a more complex thing than choosing the aperture the provides (to the extent that this can be determined) the highest optical resolution at the sensor plane, measured at either a) the best performing point in the frame, or b) the average across the frame.

(Speaking of “the extent that this can be determined,” I wonder how folks would answer the following question: Which is “sharper,” the image with the best center resolution but slightly lower corner resolution or the image with slightly less center resolution but better overall resolution across the frame?)

While we might consider whether f/16 will be softer than f/8 on some lens/camera combination — it almost certainly will be softer — it isn’t irrelevant to ask: “How much softer, and will this affect my print?” In quite a few cases the difference in maximum resolution in the print will be essentially invisible. In other words, while you will get optimal resolution at some particular aperture, you will actually still get extremely good print resolution at a smaller (or larger) aperture, too.

If there is no particular photographic reason to choose a smaller (or larger!) aperture, you might as well use whatever aperture you think will produce the highest resolution. That best resolution aperture will vary based on the lens you are using, the camera format, and arguably the photo site density of the sensor. To generalize, if you are shooting full frame it will probably be somewhere in the f/5.6-f/8 range with many lenses. (Other things can affect that — for example, what the maximum aperture of the lens is.) On a cropped sensor camera you could, in many cases, use either the same aperture or guess at one stop larger or so — while realizing that there could be resolution downsides to going larger with some lenses. Trade-offs abound! (I’ll spare you the technical discussion of all of the variables. You can think me later.)

But, seriously, if you are calculating the “sharpest” aperture to the closest 1/3-stop for each lens and using that aperture in the field and avoiding others that are slightly different, you probably aren’t really gaining anything significant from your efforts, and you may be sacrificing things that could make your photographs better.

That said, if we know that some mid-range aperture can provide the highest resolution, why use other apertures? And if we do use other apertures, won’t we end up with a softer print? Continue reading Photographic Myths And Platitudes — Diffraction Limited Aperture

Reader Question: Sony Versus Fujifilm

6/28/16: Slightly updated on 6/28/16 to reflect my acquisition of the Fujifilm X-Pro2  (B&H | Adorama) and a few other things.


Today I am sharing  another reader question and my response. This one came from “Greg” in a response to a post on my Facebook page:

Hi Dan, have heard good things about the Fuji cameras. Have also heard good things about the SONY cameras. Both are mirrorless, but the SONY is a full-frame while the Fuji is APC/1.5X. Is there a reason you would choose the Fuji over the SONY – you indicated in the article you have been using the  X-Pro1 and will be moving up to the  X-Pro2… Illuminate me on the subject

That is a great subject to consider, Greg. Both Sony and Fujifilm are making some very fine mirrorless cameras these days, but for my purposes the Fujifilm is a better fit than, say, the Sony a7R II full frame mirrorless camera that Greg is thinking of. (Small correction: I have not been using the X-Pro1. I have used the X-E1 for the past three years and I now use the X-Pro2.)

Before I explain, I must acknowledge that the Sony is an excellent body, and another photographer may well find it to be the best choice for his/her needs. The Sony a7R II is, as you point out, a full frame body and the current version has a 42MP sensor rather than a 24MP sensor. The sensor is known for its low noise and excellent dynamic range. Sony has some native lenses, but lots of folks are using their Sony cameras with a range of third party lenses, including those from their Canon and (now) Nikon DSLRs.

So, with all of those positives, why Fujifilm?

Continue reading Reader Question: Sony Versus Fujifilm

Reader Question: About Depth of Field

Lupine, Upper Sabrina Basin
Lupine, Upper Sabrina Basin

I recently received an email from David, who has some questions about depth of field:

As you have a lot of experience of using the Fuji X-E1, may I please ask you for some advice regarding landscape focusing.

My aim is to use the 18-55mm kit lens with the majority of shots taken at the widest end. I have in mind setting the lens at Hyperfocal distances, based on a crop factor of 1.5 and a circle of confusion of 0.02. I think the first figure is reliable, but I’m not sure about the second in relation to the X-E1 – perhaps you could confirm.

I have already done some testing at home using the attached table (which come from the well respected DOFmaster site).

In my experiment I carefully measured distances at apertures of f8 and f11 using a tripod and a printed card as the subject. I set the lens manually at the hyperfocal distance, using the EVF distance scale. I was disappointed to find that the closest point of focus was not as sharp as I had hoped. Have you any idea why this may be?

I did a further test on aperture f11 and this time set the distance scale at 4 feet (2/3 of the way between 3 and 5 feet). This resulted in a sharp image from 3.5 feet. This would suggest that the distance scale is not accurate.

Any suggestions you have to overcome the problem would be much appreciated.

Let me preface my response on the depth of field (DOF) issue by congratulating you for taking the time to conduct your own experiments. One of the great things about digital cameras is that we don’t have to trust what we read — we can easily and quickly conduct the experiments ourselves. In addition to getting the answer to the question at hand, we end up knowing our gear at a much deeper and even intuitive level, which is extremely important when we are in the field and we don’t have time to ponder and calculate, but must instead make a photograph in the moment.

The rest of this post is going to be somewhat involved, so let me share a quick thought right at the beginning:

The usefulness of DOF calculators is very limited, as they are based on subjective assumptions that may not match what you are doing with your photographs. The best way to align your expectations with exposure choices is to test them yourself and evaluate images in the form that you most often produce — and not just at 100% magnification on a computer screen.

What is DOF? Essentially the depth of field is the distance range in front of and behind (unless you focus at infinity) the focus point within which subjects are likely to sharp enough to seem in focus when the photograph is viewed at some arbitrary magnification. This size of this range increases as we stop down (for example, going from f/2.8 to f/8 expands the DOF) and decreases as we open the aperture (going from f/8 to f/2.8 contracts DOF). This is a source of creative control for the photographer. A smaller aperture can allow subjects across a greater distance range to appear relatively sharp, while a larger aperture can keep the primary subject in focus while pleasingly “un-focusing” elements in front of and behind the primary focus point. Continue reading Reader Question: About Depth of Field