The X-T2 Has Arrived

In article 2016070915510523865-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says...

You sure as Hell don't need IS on a 14mm f/2.8 or a 35mm f/1.4. If you
are going to shoot long exposure with a wide or ultra-wide lens, the
camera is going to be tripod mounted anyway.

Not necessarily. You might be in a dimly lit room without tripod having
to shoot at 1/3s for example, and then even at 14mm stabilisation makes
a difference.
You can try to push up the ISO to shorten the exposure time, but you get
better image quality at lower ISOs. Or you might need to stop down the
lens to have more DOF etc. Lots of possible scenarios where
stabilisation is needed.

Yup! IBIS is missing in all Fuji bodies. It is also missing in all
Nikon and Canon bodies, and I don't believe there are too many Leicas,
or Hasselblads with IBIS. It is only a key feature for you.

And all these bodies would be better if they had IBIS. Also Panasonic
has for years relied on OIS, but they recently switched to IBIS, as did
Pentax. Quite possible that also Nikon and Canon (and hopefully) Fuji
will follow suit sooner or later.

Nope. Fujifilm has covered the need for IS by providing it in lenses
where it would serve a purpose. So the X-T2 is what it is, and is
obviously not for you.

But according to
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/dig..._lens/roadmap/

most Fuji lenses do not have stabilisation. Of the three new ones
planned for 2016-17, only one comes with OIS.

Also, can't you use old lenses or other brand lenses with an adapter?
Those are likely to be without OIS as well.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 09/07/2016 21:35, Alfred Molon wrote:
[]
Sometimes you do need stabilisation, depending on the exposure time and
focal length.

Besides, what are you trying to argue? IBIS is a key feature which is
missing in all Fuji bodies. If the X-T2 had IBIS, it would be a much
more valuable camera.

Personally I prefer image stabilisation to be in the lens, so that it
can be tailored to the focal length and other lens characteristics. I
regard in-body as a fall-back in case the lens fails, but it is handy
for those wanting to use very old lenses. Panasonic offer both in-body
and stabilised lenses, so I get the best of both worlds.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 2016-07-10 09:19:27 +0000, Alfred Molon said:

In article 2016070915510523865-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says...

You sure as Hell don't need IS on a 14mm f/2.8 or a 35mm f/1.4. If you
are going to shoot long exposure with a wide or ultra-wide lens, the
camera is going to be tripod mounted anyway.

Not necessarily. You might be in a dimly lit room without tripod having
to shoot at 1/3s for example, and then even at 14mm stabilisation makes
a difference.
You can try to push up the ISO to shorten the exposure time, but you get
better image quality at lower ISOs. Or you might need to stop down the
lens to have more DOF etc. Lots of possible scenarios where
stabilisation is needed.

I think you would be surprised at low light and high ISO performance of
moderen sensors.

Yup! IBIS is missing in all Fuji bodies. It is also missing in all
Nikon and Canon bodies, and I don't believe there are too many Leicas,
or Hasselblads with IBIS. It is only a key feature for you.

And all these bodies would be better if they had IBIS.

Again that is your opinion, and not necessarily true.

Also Panasonic
has for years relied on OIS, but they recently switched to IBIS, as did
Pentax. Quite possible that also Nikon and Canon (and hopefully) Fuji
will follow suit sooner or later.

We shall see.

Nope. Fujifilm has covered the need for IS by providing it in lenses
where it would serve a purpose. So the X-T2 is what it is, and is
obviously not for you.

But according to
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/dig..._lens/roadmap/

most Fuji lenses do not have stabilisation. Of the three new ones
planned for 2016-17, only one comes with OIS.

As I said, not all lenses NEED IS/VR, and where it serves a purpose.

Also, can't you use old lenses or other brand lenses with an adapter?
Those are likely to be without OIS as well.

....and those lenses remain desirable regardless of a lack of IS/VR.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2016071003471840556-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says...

I think you would be surprised at low light and high ISO performance of
moderen sensors.

Sure, but an ISO which is 32 times lower (five stops) still makes quite
a difference.

Again that is your opinion, and not necessarily true.

Nope - having stabilisation is better than not having stabilisation.
This should be obvious and I'm surprised that you disagree with this.

As I said, not all lenses NEED IS/VR, and where it serves a purpose.

Lenses do not need stabilisation - but the photographer might need it.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

In article , Alfred Molon
wrote:

I think you would be surprised at low light and high ISO performance of
moderen sensors.

Sure, but an ISO which is 32 times lower (five stops) still makes quite
a difference.

not that much on modern cameras.

iso 1600 is excellent and even iso 3200 is quite good.

Again that is your opinion, and not necessarily true.

Nope - having stabilisation is better than not having stabilisation.
This should be obvious and I'm surprised that you disagree with this.

it's not a question of having or not having.

it's whether the stabilization is in the lens or the body.

there are advantages and disadvantages to both and which one is better
for a given situation depends on many factors. there is no free lunch.
everything has tradeoffs.

As I said, not all lenses NEED IS/VR, and where it serves a purpose.

Lenses do not need stabilisation - but the photographer might need it.

word games.

On 2016-07-10 18:04:35 +0000, Alfred Molon said:

In article 2016071003471840556-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says...

I think you would be surprised at low light and high ISO performance of
moderen sensors.

Sure, but an ISO which is 32 times lower (five stops) still makes quite
a difference.

Again that is your opinion, and not necessarily true.

Nope - having stabilisation is better than not having stabilisation.

That is true when addressing "stabilization" in general particularly
with longer focal length lenses, but your particular complaint is about
systems which are designed without OBIS, but still provide IS/OS/VR in
lenses where that feature is beneficial not superfluous.
Ultimately that is still your opinion, and the opinion of those
promoting systems with OBIS.

This should be obvious and I'm surprised that you disagree with this.

Why surprised? Like you I am entitled to my opinion.
In my opinion OBIS is not a must have on my check list of things I want
on a camera. However, if a camera which grabs my interest and meets my
needs happens to have OBIS I will not blindly exclude it from
consideration. For now I use two different systems, Nikon and Fujifilm
which don't include OBIS, and they meet my needs.

As I said, not all lenses NEED IS/VR, and where it serves a purpose.

Lenses do not need stabilisation - but the photographer might need it.

Finally the truth. That "stabilization" can be had in lenses where the
addition of IS/OS/VR is beneficial to the photographer, usually because
of failings in technique.
Long before the advent of stabilized lenses or the inclusion of OBIS,
somehow we managed to produce good, even great images.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 201607101138195400-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says...
Long before the advent of stabilized lenses or the inclusion of OBIS,
somehow we managed to produce good, even great images.

By that logic not even autofocus is needed, because you can take
pictures also without autofocus.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 2016-07-11 17:37:27 +0000, Alfred Molon said:

In article 201607101138195400-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says...
Long before the advent of stabilized lenses or the inclusion of OBIS,
somehow we managed to produce good, even great images.

By that logic not even autofocus is needed, because you can take
pictures also without autofocus.

I survived for years without AF, and even in this age of AF I still use
manual focus when appropriate or necessary.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2016071111234948762-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says...
I survived for years without AF, and even in this age of AF I still use
manual focus when appropriate or necessary.

But would you buy a body without AF now?
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 2016-07-11 20:10:40 +0000, Alfred Molon said:

In article 2016071111234948762-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says...
I survived for years without AF, and even in this age of AF I still use
manual focus when appropriate or necessary.

But would you buy a body without AF now?

With the level of cameras I would even consider these days, AF is a
standard feature. So my answer to your question is no.

--
Regards,

Savageduck