I'm looking at a second X-Trans III body to supplement my X-T2. It won't be an X100F but could definitely be another X-T2. But I've also been considering an X-Pro2. Why consider a Pro2 when X-T2 is "perfect" for me? I've learned that changing the rules, getting out of your comfort zone, etc. can lead to new kinds of photography... so I'd be willing to give it a shot.
There are lots of good reviews and comparisons of the X-Pro2 vs. the X-T2 out there, and I've read many of them. I'm also quite familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of the Pro2, and I'm not worried about the usual "weaknesses" people identify, e.g., I just don't do video so I don't care about any shortcomings it might have in that department relative to the X-T2.
My posting is for people who have used both the T2 and the Pro2 a lot and can comment on a few issues.
(1) How is the X-Pro2 when used only with the EVF rather than OVF. I realize the view is a bit smaller than the X-T2, but is the difference meaningful? If you don't like OVFs can you easily work with the EVF all the time. I love the X-T2 EVF so this isn't a question about the merits of EVFsvs OVFs
(2) What's the Pro2 like using the OVF and adapted manual lenses? I know how it all works in terms of the mechanics. What I want to know is what the user experience is like. Is it clunky or seamless and natural?
(3) I've read that parallax becomes a significant pain around 50mm+. Is this overblown? For context, I don't shoot roller derbies, race cars, or fast-moving street! Precise framing actually matters to me most of the time.
If point #3 is really important to you, use the EVF. That's the only way I shoot my XP2. That's the beauty of mirrorless. Any settings you adjust while viewing and composing are seen in real time. No need to review. I love that workflow.
Thanks Jeffrey. Sounds like you're quite happier with the EVF in terms of size, responsiveness, etc.
Do you use manual focus at all, and if so, are you happy with how that works?
Jeffrey wrote:
If point #3 is really important to you, use the EVF. That's the only way I shoot my XP2. That's the beauty of mirrorless. Any settings you adjust while viewing and composing are seen in real time. No need to review. I love that workflow.
Having used SLR's for so long before digital, and since my digital immersion over 15 years ago, I'm used to and comfortable with using one eye peeping into a tiny viewfinder. You always saw what the film or sensor was getting. It's just better now. I feel awkward with a rangefinder (OVF) and having to make my best guess what my comp and framing is. Being mainly a landscaper I used to use MF all the time with live view and a loupe. I still do sometimes, but modern autofocus with selectable AF points works so well I rarely get bad results using it. I use MF with focus peaking on my Fuji's when doing macro work. When I'm doing handheld portraits, action, wildlife or street, I count of full AF mode.
For me, Focus Peaking on the X-Pro2 is what makes manual focus with primes more engaging for me. I tend prefer it over selecting the autofocus point with the joystick.
Focus peaking does work well on the X-T2, so if it's the same on the X-Pro2 (which seems to be the case) then that's good.
I also use a Sony A7R with adapted manual lenses, and I have to say this is one place where Sony kills Fuji. I find that for critical focus, Fuji doesn't zoom in enough, and is not clear enough. My A7R zooms in much closer and much more clearly. I don't understand why the zoomed-in view on my Fuji can't be better, but it's obviously not a problem for most people.
Generally speaking if I'm zooming it's because I'm on a tripod, but I see what you mean.
Fortunately, autofocus is extremely accurate and the nice tight focus area you can use means that I'm almost never using manual focus with the Fuji lenses. An exception is the 60/2.4 where I will manually focus and zoom in. With my adapted Olympus lenses I obviously don't have that option!
Derek_S wrote:
I know what you mean in regard to the zoomed in view - for me, I prefer no zoom because that'd hinder composition.
I have both the X-T2 and XPro2 and use both extensively. I absolutely love the XPro2 and use the EVF exclusively. I use Fuji lenses exclusively, so I don't have any adapted lenses, so I can't offer any comments on that. But I would not hesitate to get the XPro2 and use the EVF. It's a winner.
Steve, the usual rationale for X-T2 and X-Pro2 together is bigger zooms on the X-T2 and primes on the X-Pro2. Is that your take too, or do you have different reasons for using both, rather than two of one or two of the other?
Steve Wylie wrote:
I have both the X-T2 and XPro2 and use both extensively. I absolutely love the XPro2 and use the EVF exclusively. I use Fuji lenses exclusively, so I don't have any adapted lenses, so I can't offer any comments on that. But I would not hesitate to get the XPro2 and use the EVF. It's a winner.
rdeloe wrote:
Fuji doesn't zoom in enough, and is not clear enough. My A7R zooms in much closer and much more clearly. I don't understand why the zoomed-in view on my Fuji can't be better, but it's obviously not a problem for most people.
I'm sure that each of these cameras zooms in to 100% (1 pixel in file per 1pixl on screen). You must remember that the Sony has about 20MP more than the Fuji, so it seems more like a telescope. I regularly use a Canon 5Dsr (50.5 MP) and the zoom sensation is even greater. Still, they are all at 100% at their max setting.
I wish it were so... Unfortunately, the Fuji X-T2 has two zoom rations: 2.5x and 6x. The A7R has three zoom levels, with the max being 14.4x.
Jeffrey wrote:
I'm sure that each of these cameras zooms in to 100% (1 pixel in file per 1pixl on screen). You must remember that the Sony has about 20MP more than the Fuji, so it seems more like a telescope. I regularly use a Canon 5Dsr (50.5 MP) and the zoom sensation is even greater. Still, they are all at 100% at their max setting.
If I knew exactly what was being zoomed 2.5x, 6x, 14x or any 'ratio', I'd know if my statement is correct. 2.5 times what? The pixel count of the rear screen?, the native DPI? What to those values represent? With different MP sensors and screen sizes and screen resolutions, it still seems to me that whatever numbers the manufacturer uses to define their zoom strength, all cameras should be at 100% at their respective max zoom viewing. Thats what we need to see to make focusing decisions after all. And when you review an image to see if you got the 'eye' tack sharp, you want to see it at 100%. Then you know what you have to work with in post and on to print.
Those zoom ratios are the language the camera manufacturers use, and provide in their camera manuals; that's where I got the numbers. I always thought it was standard language in the industry to refer to magnification. So "2x" zoom meant you are shown 1/2 or 50% of the screen area (whether through the EVF or on the screen on the back of the camera). By that logic, on my Fuji, at maximum magnification, I am shown 1/6 of the screen area, and on my Sony at maximum magnification I am shown 1/14.4 of my screen area (a smaller area, so I am zoomed in more).
I totally agree with you that more is better! I definitely make use of 14.4x zoom on my Sony for critical focus -- basically any time I'm on a tripod. Fuji's EVF has 2.36 million pixels. Sony's has the same. So Fuji has just chosen to not magnify as much. I wonder whether or not that could be improved with a firmware update? That's beyond me I'm afraid.
Perhaps someone else who knows for sure can comment on this, but it occurred to me that the maximum zoom ratio may be a function of the size of the JPEG preview (because that's what the cameras are zooming in on, in RAW mode at least). Does the A7R use a JPEG preview with more resolution, which would permit more magnification? If that's the case, I presume that Fuji could use a larger JPEG preview file, but that might have implications for performance (e.g., how quickly preview images load).
rdeloe wrote:
Fuji's EVF has 2.36 million pixels. Sony's has the same. So Fuji has just chosen to not magnify as much. I wonder whether or not that could be improved with a firmware update? That's beyond me I'm afraid.
Just experimented with different JPG sizes and EVF magnification with my X-Pro2 and there's no difference in magnification.
I ocasionally use a Voigtlander Ultron 28mm f/2 on my X-Pro2 and I really like the shooting experience, both with EVF + focus peaking and OVF + magnification patch.
With the OVF make sure to crank up the frame lines brighness or it not be a very satisfying experience in daylight.
I find the X-Pro2 (and my prior X-E2) EVF size/magnification excellent. I don't remember ever seeing people discussing this, but for me a high-magnification finder can be overwhelming sometimes, it's so big that one loses the sense of composition, at least it happened to me when I had a A7II.
I think the JPEG preview that is used to create what we see through the EVF or screen is independent of the size of the JPEG that is stored; your test seems to confirm that.
I really need to put a lens on an X-Pro2 and see for myself! I shoot a lot in portrait orientation, and I prefer to hold the camera with both elbows down (rather than the right-hand coming from above hold). From looking at pictures of the thing the button and joystick positions might work a bit better for me. Time to find one and try!
Sr.Cordeiro wrote:
Just experimented with different JPG sizes and EVF magnification with my X-Pro2 and there's no difference in magnification.
I thought I was done with manual lenses since I got the X-Pro2. I even was selling my beloved Voigtlander Ultron 28mm f/2 and got the Fujinon 27mm.
The Fujinon is without a doubt a superior lens regarding sharpness, but I thought it was missing something, I don't have much fun shooting with it.
Since no one bought the Ultron yet I took it out some days ago just for fun, and I was hooked. The shooting experience is just marvelous. I use it with the OVF + patch and I'm finding it better to use the patch without magnification (seeing the hole image in the tiny patch on the corner), surprisingly I can clearly see the focus peaking and have a lot less misfocused shots.
Same! I only used manual lenses on my A7R. When I added Fuji to my bag I also added a suite of the fabulous Fuji primes. Then I started on a quest for tilt-shift capability on the X-T2 and bought one Olympus OM Zuiko manual lens. And another. And another... Now I have a set of Zuikos! I'm only keeping the ones that shift well... but I do love using them and often go out just with my Zuikos. They're not as sharp or contrasty as the Fuji lenses, but I'm shooting for black and white so the lower contrast on most of them isn't a problem. And I don't actually love the clinically-sharp look of the best modern lenses. (The Fujis are within my comfort zone, but so are the Zuikos.)
It might just be me but there is an aesthetic, tactile thing going on with the Zuikos that I don't experience with the Fuji lenses. It's silly, I know, but I just enjoy holding and operating the old lenses. My Takumar lenses produce the same reaction. I don't refer to any of my Zuikos as "My Precious" so there's no Golum action happening here...
On the focus peaking issue, I have found it to be unreliable on my X-T2. I set focus peaking to "Low" and "Red" and I'm using a low contrast monochrome JPEG in the EVF with reduced sharpness. This ought to minimize false edges. But I still find that an image that should be sharp based on focus peaking often is not. I've now switched over to "Standard" (no peaking or other enhancement) and zoom in.
I really do find that this is one area where Sony kicks Fuji's butt. Manual focus on my Sony A7R is vastly better than on my X-T2. Not only can I zoom in more on the Sony (14x versus 6x) but also the focus peaking is more accurate. This is definitely an area where Fuji's engineers need to up their game. The one thing the X-T2 has over the A7R is the joystick for moving the zoomed area, and the fact that you can jump from the top of the image to the bottom in one push. That's extremely helpful. With the A7R it's a pain that the edge of the image is a hard boundary, so you have to push multiple times to get to the top, and then multiple times in the opposite direction to get to the bottom. With X-T2 I can flip back and forth from top to bottom (or left to right) of the image in one push of the stick.
Sr.Cordeiro wrote:
I thought I was done with manual lenses since I got the X-Pro2. I even was selling my beloved Voigtlander Ultron 28mm f/2 and got the Fujinon 27mm.
The Fujinon is without a doubt a superior lens regarding sharpness, but I thought it was missing something, I don't have much fun shooting with it.
Since no one bought the Ultron yet I took it out some days ago just for fun, and I was hooked. The shooting experience is just marvelous. I use it with the OVF + patch and I'm finding it better to use the patch without magnification (seeing the hole image in the tiny patch on the corner), surprisingly I can clearly see the focus peaking and have a lot less misfocused shots....Show more →
rdeloe wrote:
It might just be me but there is an aesthetic, tactile thing going on with the Zuikos that I don't experience with the Fuji lenses. It's silly, I know, but I just enjoy holding and operating the old lenses. My Takumar lenses produce the same reaction. I don't refer to any of my Zuikos as "My Precious" so there's no Golum action happening here...
I think it has something to do with being more involved in the process of taking a photo when using a manual lens, the mechanical smooth focus ring also makes the experience more enjoyable.
rdeloe wrote:
On the focus peaking issue, I have found it to be unreliable on my X-T2. I set focus peaking to "Low" and "Red" and I'm using a low contrast monochrome JPEG in the EVF with reduced sharpness. This ought to minimize false edges. But I still find that an image that should be sharp based on focus peaking often is not. I've now switched over to "Standard" (no peaking or other enhancement) and zoom in.
I really do find that this is one area where Sony kicks Fuji's butt. Manual focus on my Sony A7R is vastly better than on my X-T2. Not only can I zoom in more on the Sony (14x versus 6x) but also the focus peaking is more accurate. This is definitely an area where Fuji's engineers need to up their game. The one thing the X-T2 has over the A7R is the joystick for moving the zoomed area, and the fact that you can jump from the top of the image to the bottom in one push. That's extremely helpful. With the A7R it's a pain that the edge of the image is a hard boundary, so you have to push multiple times to get to the top, and then multiple times in the opposite direction to get to the bottom. With X-T2 I can flip back and forth from top to bottom (or left to right) of the image in one push of the stick. ...Show more →
Initially I used the same settings as you do because it made sense, but I discovered that the opposite actually is working better for me: high jpg sharpening, red focus peaking on high with a monochrome jpg setting.
Maybe the A7rII is different but back when I had a A7II I found the focus peaking disapointing, I got a lot of misfocused shots. The MF shooting experience just wasn't enjoyable for me because I had to use magnification every time to make sure the focus was spot on. I experimented with different settings and the results were the same, something that surprised me since Sony is generally highly regarded in this area, although I've read other users had the same problems with peaking on Sony FF cameras. Some say it works better with APS-C cameras, may be because of the thinner DOF in FF, the truth is that I got better and more reliable results with the X-E2 and X-Pro2 focus peaking using the "high" setting then I ever did with the A7II.
