Fuji's marketing concept?
p.4 #1Fuji's marketing concept?
Geoff D F wrote:
It is far from “utterly unusable,” but performance is uneven. My experience:
Shooting small primes for street/travel the focus accuracy is usually quite good. It isn’t as fast as the fastest from other brands, but it is effectively fast.
Oddly, I have had a less satisfying experience with zooms, including the 16-55mm f/2.8, the 50-140mm f/2.8, and the 100-400mm. I’m still trying to understand why this is. To some extent it appears to be somewhat an issue of consistency — last week I was photographing at a wildlife refuge and I got some quite decent stuff from the 100-400 when shooting landscape subjects, but not quite as good or as consistent with wildlife, which was birds that were mostly nearly stationary.
Some recent misses with the 50-140 has perplexed me, since it has been been very sharp and accurate in the past, Still trying to figure that one out.
Generally the “misses” are still usable, but just not as sharp as i expect.Fuji AF is not unusable - but needs to be watched more than, say, Sony AF. In AF-S, it can be 50cm to 1m off fromn shot to shot at mid distance (like 3m-10m). And that doesn't cause issues (mostly) unless the image is viewed at 100%. What I find more irritating is the focus beyond infinity that happens quite often when aiming at a distant subject (and unless the focus distance limiter function is set to "on"). Focus beyond infinity leads to an overall soft image which shows even when not at 100%. As you have noticed, AF is more "inconsistent" with zoom lenses, while my prime lenses (except for WA) fare much better.I really don't know what you are doing with your AF. When my cameras miss it is pretty obvious in the VF and I just recompose and give the AF a second chance which it normally gets. I rarely if ever get home to find when pixel peeping that the AF has missed from where I wanted it. Are you shooting fast moving subjects in continuousc AF?
Nothing fast moving. And no: You can't really see OOF when the camera goes beyond infinity. One could probably with longer focal length such as the 50 and 90mm. But those lenses do focus correctly most of the time, anyway. But with anything 35mm and below there is no chance to tell in the VF. It only shows upon closer inspection after the shot. The focus is just not where it should be on a pixel level. And that area of sharp focus is very narrow at pixel level, even with a WA lens.
Nielk Mike wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
JadedWriter wrote
Yes because Fuji's AF is utterly unusable:..Shooting small primes for street/travel the focus accuracy is usually quite good. It isn’t as fast as the fastest from other brands, but it is effectively fast.
Oddly, I have had a less satisfying experience with zooms, including the 16-55mm f/2.8, the 50-140mm f/2.8, and the 100-400mm. I’m still trying to understand why this is. To some extent it appears to be somewhat an issue of consistency — last week I was photographing at a wildlife refuge and I got some quite decent stuff from the 100-400 when shooting landscape subjects, but not quite as good or as consistent with wildlife, which was birds that were mostly nearly stationary.
Some recent misses with the 50-140 has perplexed me, since it has been been very sharp and accurate in the past, Still trying to figure that one out.
Generally the “misses” are still usable, but just not as sharp as i expect.
Nothing fast moving. And no: You can't really see OOF when the camera goes beyond infinity. One could probably with longer focal length such as the 50 and 90mm. But those lenses do focus correctly most of the time, anyway. But with anything 35mm and below there is no chance to tell in the VF. It only shows upon closer inspection after the shot. The focus is just not where it should be on a pixel level. And that area of sharp focus is very narrow at pixel level, even with a WA lens.
Nov 22, 2025 at 05:01 AM
p.4 #2Fuji's marketing concept?
Nielk Mike wrote:
It is far from “utterly unusable,” but performance is uneven. My experience:
Shooting small primes for street/travel the focus accuracy is usually quite good. It isn’t as fast as the fastest from other brands, but it is effectively fast.
Oddly, I have had a less satisfying experience with zooms, including the 16-55mm f/2.8, the 50-140mm f/2.8, and the 100-400mm. I’m still trying to understand why this is. To some extent it appears to be somewhat an issue of consistency — last week I was photographing at a wildlife refuge and I got some quite decent stuff from the 100-400 when shooting landscape subjects, but not quite as good or as consistent with wildlife, which was birds that were mostly nearly stationary.
Some recent misses with the 50-140 has perplexed me, since it has been been very sharp and accurate in the past, Still trying to figure that one out.
Generally the “misses” are still usable, but just not as sharp as i expect.Fuji AF is not unusable - but needs to be watched more than, say, Sony AF. In AF-S, it can be 50cm to 1m off fromn shot to shot at mid distance (like 3m-10m). And that doesn't cause issues (mostly) unless the image is viewed at 100%. What I find more irritating is the focus beyond infinity that happens quite often when aiming at a distant subject (and unless the focus distance limiter function is set to "on"). Focus beyond infinity leads to an overall soft image which shows even when not at 100%. As you have noticed, AF is more "inconsistent" with zoom lenses, while my prime lenses (except for WA) fare much better.I really don't know what you are doing with your AF. When my cameras miss it is pretty obvious in the VF and I just recompose and give the AF a second chance which it normally gets. I rarely if ever get home to find when pixel peeping that the AF has missed from where I wanted it. Are you shooting fast moving subjects in continuousc AF?Nothing fast moving. And no: You can't really see OOF when the camera goes beyond infinity. One could probably with longer focal length such as the 50 and 90mm. But those lenses do focus correctly most of the time, anyway. But with anything 35mm and below there is no chance to tell in the VF. It only shows upon closer inspection after the shot. The focus is just not where it should be on a pixel level. And that area of sharp focus is very narrow at pixel level, even with a WA lens.
I don't think any modern 'fly by wire' af lens has a hard infinity stop, and since af works by over- and under-shooting the focus point till it arrives at the 'best' focus within it's tolerances they are bound to be able to focus 'beyond infinity'. I use single point af-s almost all the time, and quite often scale focus with the lens on manual with the 14mm and don't have any problems. Any af system will have a 'tolerance', if you look hard enough you will find it, but real image production needs Depth of Field to function usefully, so looking at images at great magnification to spot minor and inconsequential 'problems is an interesting technical exercise of no practical significance.
If you want to experience poor AF, try an early Nikon like the F801 I still have somewhere, near terminal hunting on anything less than zebra stripes.
Gerry
Geoff D F wrote
Nielk Mike wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
JadedWriter wrote
Yes because Fuji's AF is utterly unusable:..Shooting small primes for street/travel the focus accuracy is usually quite good. It isn’t as fast as the fastest from other brands, but it is effectively fast.
Oddly, I have had a less satisfying experience with zooms, including the 16-55mm f/2.8, the 50-140mm f/2.8, and the 100-400mm. I’m still trying to understand why this is. To some extent it appears to be somewhat an issue of consistency — last week I was photographing at a wildlife refuge and I got some quite decent stuff from the 100-400 when shooting landscape subjects, but not quite as good or as consistent with wildlife, which was birds that were mostly nearly stationary.
Some recent misses with the 50-140 has perplexed me, since it has been been very sharp and accurate in the past, Still trying to figure that one out.
Generally the “misses” are still usable, but just not as sharp as i expect.
I don't think any modern 'fly by wire' af lens has a hard infinity stop, and since af works by over- and under-shooting the focus point till it arrives at the 'best' focus within it's tolerances they are bound to be able to focus 'beyond infinity'. I use single point af-s almost all the time, and quite often scale focus with the lens on manual with the 14mm and don't have any problems. Any af system will have a 'tolerance', if you look hard enough you will find it, but real image production needs Depth of Field to function usefully, so looking at images at great magnification to spot minor and inconsequential 'problems is an interesting technical exercise of no practical significance.
If you want to experience poor AF, try an early Nikon like the F801 I still have somewhere, near terminal hunting on anything less than zebra stripes.
Gerry
Nov 23, 2025 at 02:13 PM
p.4 #3Fuji's marketing concept?
Nielk Mike wrote:
It is far from “utterly unusable,” but performance is uneven. My experience:
Shooting small primes for street/travel the focus accuracy is usually quite good. It isn’t as fast as the fastest from other brands, but it is effectively fast.
Oddly, I have had a less satisfying experience with zooms, including the 16-55mm f/2.8, the 50-140mm f/2.8, and the 100-400mm. I’m still trying to understand why this is. To some extent it appears to be somewhat an issue of consistency — last week I was photographing at a wildlife refuge and I got some quite decent stuff from the 100-400 when shooting landscape subjects, but not quite as good or as consistent with wildlife, which was birds that were mostly nearly stationary.
Some recent misses with the 50-140 has perplexed me, since it has been been very sharp and accurate in the past, Still trying to figure that one out.
Generally the “misses” are still usable, but just not as sharp as i expect.Fuji AF is not unusable - but needs to be watched more than, say, Sony AF. In AF-S, it can be 50cm to 1m off fromn shot to shot at mid distance (like 3m-10m). And that doesn't cause issues (mostly) unless the image is viewed at 100%. What I find more irritating is the focus beyond infinity that happens quite often when aiming at a distant subject (and unless the focus distance limiter function is set to "on"). Focus beyond infinity leads to an overall soft image which shows even when not at 100%. As you have noticed, AF is more "inconsistent" with zoom lenses, while my prime lenses (except for WA) fare much better.I really don't know what you are doing with your AF. When my cameras miss it is pretty obvious in the VF and I just recompose and give the AF a second chance which it normally gets. I rarely if ever get home to find when pixel peeping that the AF has missed from where I wanted it. Are you shooting fast moving subjects in continuousc AF?Nothing fast moving. And no: You can't really see OOF when the camera goes beyond infinity. One could probably with longer focal length such as the 50 and 90mm. But those lenses do focus correctly most of the time, anyway. But with anything 35mm and below there is no chance to tell in the VF. It only shows upon closer inspection after the shot. The focus is just not where it should be on a pixel level. And that area of sharp focus is very narrow at pixel level, even with a WA lens.
I'm not sure why you are aiming to use AF to achieve infinity focus in the first place. Nearly all my landscapes will have a subject in them that is not on the horizon, maybe 5 to 30m that i will focus on. I then stop down to get sufficient dof to where I want it, which will often be to the horizon. It can also be an effective photographic technique to have critical sharpness on the main subjects in a landscape photo but just slightly less elswhere.
Geoff D F wrote
Nielk Mike wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
JadedWriter wrote
Yes because Fuji's AF is utterly unusable:..Shooting small primes for street/travel the focus accuracy is usually quite good. It isn’t as fast as the fastest from other brands, but it is effectively fast.
Oddly, I have had a less satisfying experience with zooms, including the 16-55mm f/2.8, the 50-140mm f/2.8, and the 100-400mm. I’m still trying to understand why this is. To some extent it appears to be somewhat an issue of consistency — last week I was photographing at a wildlife refuge and I got some quite decent stuff from the 100-400 when shooting landscape subjects, but not quite as good or as consistent with wildlife, which was birds that were mostly nearly stationary.
Some recent misses with the 50-140 has perplexed me, since it has been been very sharp and accurate in the past, Still trying to figure that one out.
Generally the “misses” are still usable, but just not as sharp as i expect.
I'm not sure why you are aiming to use AF to achieve infinity focus in the first place. Nearly all my landscapes will have a subject in them that is not on the horizon, maybe 5 to 30m that i will focus on. I then stop down to get sufficient dof to where I want it, which will often be to the horizon. It can also be an effective photographic technique to have critical sharpness on the main subjects in a landscape photo but just slightly less elswhere.
Nov 23, 2025 at 09:02 PM
p.4 #4Fuji's marketing concept?
gyoung143 wrote:
It is far from “utterly unusable,” but performance is uneven. My experience:
Shooting small primes for street/travel the focus accuracy is usually quite good. It isn’t as fast as the fastest from other brands, but it is effectively fast.
Oddly, I have had a less satisfying experience with zooms, including the 16-55mm f/2.8, the 50-140mm f/2.8, and the 100-400mm. I’m still trying to understand why this is. To some extent it appears to be somewhat an issue of consistency — last week I was photographing at a wildlife refuge and I got some quite decent stuff from the 100-400 when shooting landscape subjects, but not quite as good or as consistent with wildlife, which was birds that were mostly nearly stationary.
Some recent misses with the 50-140 has perplexed me, since it has been been very sharp and accurate in the past, Still trying to figure that one out.
Generally the “misses” are still usable, but just not as sharp as i expect.Fuji AF is not unusable - but needs to be watched more than, say, Sony AF. In AF-S, it can be 50cm to 1m off fromn shot to shot at mid distance (like 3m-10m). And that doesn't cause issues (mostly) unless the image is viewed at 100%. What I find more irritating is the focus beyond infinity that happens quite often when aiming at a distant subject (and unless the focus distance limiter function is set to "on"). Focus beyond infinity leads to an overall soft image which shows even when not at 100%. As you have noticed, AF is more "inconsistent" with zoom lenses, while my prime lenses (except for WA) fare much better.I really don't know what you are doing with your AF. When my cameras miss it is pretty obvious in the VF and I just recompose and give the AF a second chance which it normally gets. I rarely if ever get home to find when pixel peeping that the AF has missed from where I wanted it. Are you shooting fast moving subjects in continuousc AF?Nothing fast moving. And no: You can't really see OOF when the camera goes beyond infinity. One could probably with longer focal length such as the 50 and 90mm. But those lenses do focus correctly most of the time, anyway. But with anything 35mm and below there is no chance to tell in the VF. It only shows upon closer inspection after the shot. The focus is just not where it should be on a pixel level. And that area of sharp focus is very narrow at pixel level, even with a WA lens.I don't think any modern 'fly by wire' af lens has a hard infinity stop, and since af works by over- and under-shooting the focus point till it arrives at the 'best' focus within it's tolerances they are bound to be able to focus 'beyond infinity'. I use single point af-s almost all the time, and quite often scale focus with the lens on manual with the 14mm and don't have any problems. Any af system will have a 'tolerance', if you look hard enough you will find it, but real image production needs Depth of Field to function usefully,...Show more →
Sony lenses can be manually focused beyond invinity - yes. But I have yet to encounter a shot that is soft from beyond infinity focus with any of my Sony cameras and lenses. Fuji cameras set focus beyond the lenses infinity point. You can tell by looking at the focus distance indicator (knowing where the "real" infinity focus position of that lens is) and of course by the rresults, which are soft overall. not like massively unsharp soo that it would be easy to tell from looking at the EVF. It is a softness that affects the whole frame from near to far and becomes a problem when cropping.
Nielk Mike wrote
Geoff D F wrote
Nielk Mike wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
JadedWriter wrote
Yes because Fuji's AF is utterly unusable:..Shooting small primes for street/travel the focus accuracy is usually quite good. It isn’t as fast as the fastest from other brands, but it is effectively fast.
Oddly, I have had a less satisfying experience with zooms, including the 16-55mm f/2.8, the 50-140mm f/2.8, and the 100-400mm. I’m still trying to understand why this is. To some extent it appears to be somewhat an issue of consistency — last week I was photographing at a wildlife refuge and I got some quite decent stuff from the 100-400 when shooting landscape subjects, but not quite as good or as consistent with wildlife, which was birds that were mostly nearly stationary.
Some recent misses with the 50-140 has perplexed me, since it has been been very sharp and accurate in the past, Still trying to figure that one out.
Generally the “misses” are still usable, but just not as sharp as i expect.
Sony lenses can be manually focused beyond invinity - yes. But I have yet to encounter a shot that is soft from beyond infinity focus with any of my Sony cameras and lenses. Fuji cameras set focus beyond the lenses infinity point. You can tell by looking at the focus distance indicator (knowing where the "real" infinity focus position of that lens is) and of course by the rresults, which are soft overall. not like massively unsharp soo that it would be easy to tell from looking at the EVF. It is a softness that affects the whole frame from near to far and becomes a problem when cropping.
Nov 24, 2025 at 02:16 AM
p.4 #5Fuji's marketing concept?
Geoff D F wrote:
It is far from “utterly unusable,” but performance is uneven. My experience:
Shooting small primes for street/travel the focus accuracy is usually quite good. It isn’t as fast as the fastest from other brands, but it is effectively fast.
Oddly, I have had a less satisfying experience with zooms, including the 16-55mm f/2.8, the 50-140mm f/2.8, and the 100-400mm. I’m still trying to understand why this is. To some extent it appears to be somewhat an issue of consistency — last week I was photographing at a wildlife refuge and I got some quite decent stuff from the 100-400 when shooting landscape subjects, but not quite as good or as consistent with wildlife, which was birds that were mostly nearly stationary.
Some recent misses with the 50-140 has perplexed me, since it has been been very sharp and accurate in the past, Still trying to figure that one out.
Generally the “misses” are still usable, but just not as sharp as i expect.Fuji AF is not unusable - but needs to be watched more than, say, Sony AF. In AF-S, it can be 50cm to 1m off fromn shot to shot at mid distance (like 3m-10m). And that doesn't cause issues (mostly) unless the image is viewed at 100%. What I find more irritating is the focus beyond infinity that happens quite often when aiming at a distant subject (and unless the focus distance limiter function is set to "on"). Focus beyond infinity leads to an overall soft image which shows even when not at 100%. As you have noticed, AF is more "inconsistent" with zoom lenses, while my prime lenses (except for WA) fare much better.I really don't know what you are doing with your AF. When my cameras miss it is pretty obvious in the VF and I just recompose and give the AF a second chance which it normally gets. I rarely if ever get home to find when pixel peeping that the AF has missed from where I wanted it. Are you shooting fast moving subjects in continuousc AF?Nothing fast moving. And no: You can't really see OOF when the camera goes beyond infinity. One could probably with longer focal length such as the 50 and 90mm. But those lenses do focus correctly most of the time, anyway. But with anything 35mm and below there is no chance to tell in the VF. It only shows upon closer inspection after the shot. The focus is just not where it should be on a pixel level. And that area of sharp focus is very narrow at pixel level, even with a WA lens.I'm not sure why you are aiming to use AF to achieve infinity focus in the first place. Nearly all my landscapes will have a subject in them that is not on the horizon, maybe 5 to 30m that i will focus on. I then stop down to get sufficient dof to where I want it, which will often be to the horizon. It can also be an effective photographic technique to have critical sharpness on the main subjects in a landscape photo but just slightly less elswhere.
I am not aiming at the horizon. But with many WA lenses, infinity focus is already achieved even if the object is just 50m or 100m away. Aiming at tree or house at that distance can already lead to focus beyond infinity. Wanna try?
Take a lens where infinity focus is already achieved when the distance indicator bar is not underneath the infinity mark but under the "0" of the 10m mark (my 14mm is such a lens, but also the 10-24 at the wide end. Same for the 15-45 and 18-55). Using AF, the distance indicator should stop under neath the "0" to achieve correct infinity focus. In fact, it often goes the infinity sign and beyond.
Nielk Mike wrote
Geoff D F wrote
Nielk Mike wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
JadedWriter wrote
Yes because Fuji's AF is utterly unusable:..Shooting small primes for street/travel the focus accuracy is usually quite good. It isn’t as fast as the fastest from other brands, but it is effectively fast.
Oddly, I have had a less satisfying experience with zooms, including the 16-55mm f/2.8, the 50-140mm f/2.8, and the 100-400mm. I’m still trying to understand why this is. To some extent it appears to be somewhat an issue of consistency — last week I was photographing at a wildlife refuge and I got some quite decent stuff from the 100-400 when shooting landscape subjects, but not quite as good or as consistent with wildlife, which was birds that were mostly nearly stationary.
Some recent misses with the 50-140 has perplexed me, since it has been been very sharp and accurate in the past, Still trying to figure that one out.
Generally the “misses” are still usable, but just not as sharp as i expect.
I am not aiming at the horizon. But with many WA lenses, infinity focus is already achieved even if the object is just 50m or 100m away. Aiming at tree or house at that distance can already lead to focus beyond infinity. Wanna try?
Take a lens where infinity focus is already achieved when the distance indicator bar is not underneath the infinity mark but under the "0" of the 10m mark (my 14mm is such a lens, but also the 10-24 at the wide end. Same for the 15-45 and 18-55). Using AF, the distance indicator should stop under neath the "0" to achieve correct infinity focus. In fact, it often goes the infinity sign and beyond.
Nov 24, 2025 at 02:23 AM
p.4 #6Fuji's marketing concept?
Geoff D F wrote:
It is far from “utterly unusable,” but performance is uneven. My experience:
Shooting small primes for street/travel the focus accuracy is usually quite good. It isn’t as fast as the fastest from other brands, but it is effectively fast.
Oddly, I have had a less satisfying experience with zooms, including the 16-55mm f/2.8, the 50-140mm f/2.8, and the 100-400mm. I’m still trying to understand why this is. To some extent it appears to be somewhat an issue of consistency — last week I was photographing at a wildlife refuge and I got some quite decent stuff from the 100-400 when shooting landscape subjects, but not quite as good or as consistent with wildlife, which was birds that were mostly nearly stationary.
Some recent misses with the 50-140 has perplexed me, since it has been been very sharp and accurate in the past, Still trying to figure that one out.
Generally the “misses” are still usable, but just not as sharp as i expect.Fuji AF is not unusable - but needs to be watched more than, say, Sony AF. In AF-S, it can be 50cm to 1m off fromn shot to shot at mid distance (like 3m-10m). And that doesn't cause issues (mostly) unless the image is viewed at 100%. What I find more irritating is the focus beyond infinity that happens quite often when aiming at a distant subject (and unless the focus distance limiter function is set to "on"). Focus beyond infinity leads to an overall soft image which shows even when not at 100%. As you have noticed, AF is more "inconsistent" with zoom lenses, while my prime lenses (except for WA) fare much better.I really don't know what you are doing with your AF. When my cameras miss it is pretty obvious in the VF and I just recompose and give the AF a second chance which it normally gets. I rarely if ever get home to find when pixel peeping that the AF has missed from where I wanted it. Are you shooting fast moving subjects in continuousc AF?Nothing fast moving. And no: You can't really see OOF when the camera goes beyond infinity. One could probably with longer focal length such as the 50 and 90mm. But those lenses do focus correctly most of the time, anyway. But with anything 35mm and below there is no chance to tell in the VF. It only shows upon closer inspection after the shot. The focus is just not where it should be on a pixel level. And that area of sharp focus is very narrow at pixel level, even with a WA lens.I'm not sure why you are aiming to use AF to achieve infinity focus in the first place. Nearly all my landscapes will have a subject in them that is not on the horizon, maybe 5 to 30m that i will focus on. I then stop down to get sufficient dof to where I want it, which will often be to the horizon. It can also be an effective photographic technique to have critical sharpness on the main subjects in a landscape photo but just slightly less elswhere.
Yes, the only times I can ever remember setting focus at actual infinity has been for shots of aircraft in distant flight, or for landscape where I want distant mountains etc as the prime focus point. Then I focus manually.
Gerry
Nielk Mike wrote
Geoff D F wrote
Nielk Mike wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
JadedWriter wrote
Yes because Fuji's AF is utterly unusable:..Shooting small primes for street/travel the focus accuracy is usually quite good. It isn’t as fast as the fastest from other brands, but it is effectively fast.
Oddly, I have had a less satisfying experience with zooms, including the 16-55mm f/2.8, the 50-140mm f/2.8, and the 100-400mm. I’m still trying to understand why this is. To some extent it appears to be somewhat an issue of consistency — last week I was photographing at a wildlife refuge and I got some quite decent stuff from the 100-400 when shooting landscape subjects, but not quite as good or as consistent with wildlife, which was birds that were mostly nearly stationary.
Some recent misses with the 50-140 has perplexed me, since it has been been very sharp and accurate in the past, Still trying to figure that one out.
Generally the “misses” are still usable, but just not as sharp as i expect.
Yes, the only times I can ever remember setting focus at actual infinity has been for shots of aircraft in distant flight, or for landscape where I want distant mountains etc as the prime focus point. Then I focus manually.
Gerry
Nov 24, 2025 at 05:59 AM
p.4 #7Fuji's marketing concept?
Nielk Mike wrote:
Shooting small primes for street/travel the focus accuracy is usually quite good. It isn’t as fast as the fastest from other brands, but it is effectively fast.
Oddly, I have had a less satisfying experience with zooms, including the 16-55mm f/2.8, the 50-140mm f/2.8, and the 100-400mm. I’m still trying to understand why this is. To some extent it appears to be somewhat an issue of consistency — last week I was photographing at a wildlife refuge and I got some quite decent stuff from the 100-400 when shooting landscape subjects, but not quite as good or as consistent with wildlife, which was birds that were mostly nearly stationary.
Some recent misses with the 50-140 has perplexed me, since it has been been very sharp and accurate in the past, Still trying to figure that one out.
Generally the “misses” are still usable, but just not as sharp as i expect.Fuji AF is not unusable - but needs to be watched more than, say, Sony AF. In AF-S, it can be 50cm to 1m off fromn shot to shot at mid distance (like 3m-10m). And that doesn't cause issues (mostly) unless the image is viewed at 100%. What I find more irritating is the focus beyond infinity that happens quite often when aiming at a distant subject (and unless the focus distance limiter function is set to "on"). Focus beyond infinity leads to an overall soft image which shows even when not at 100%. As you have noticed, AF is more "inconsistent" with zoom lenses, while my prime lenses (except for WA) fare much better.I really don't know what you are doing with your AF. When my cameras miss it is pretty obvious in the VF and I just recompose and give the AF a second chance which it normally gets. I rarely if ever get home to find when pixel peeping that the AF has missed from where I wanted it. Are you shooting fast moving subjects in continuousc AF?Nothing fast moving. And no: You can't really see OOF when the camera goes beyond infinity. One could probably with longer focal length such as the 50 and 90mm. But those lenses do focus correctly most of the time, anyway. But with anything 35mm and below there is no chance to tell in the VF. It only shows upon closer inspection after the shot. The focus is just not where it should be on a pixel level. And that area of sharp focus is very narrow at pixel level, even with a WA lens.I'm not sure why you are aiming to use AF to achieve infinity focus in the first place. Nearly all my landscapes will have a subject in them that is not on the horizon, maybe 5 to 30m that i will focus on. I then stop down to get sufficient dof to where I want it, which will often be to the horizon. It can also be an effective photographic technique to have critical sharpness on the main subjects in a landscape photo but just slightly less elswhere.I am not aiming at the horizon. But with many WA lenses, infinity focus is already achieved even if the object is just 50m or 100m away. Aiming at tree or house at that distance can already lead to focus beyond infinity. Wanna try?
Take a lens where infinity focus is already achieved when the distance indicator bar is not underneath the infinity mark but under the "0" of the 10m mark (my 14mm is such a lens, but also the 10-24 at the wide end. Same for the 15-45 and 18-55). Using AF, the distance indicator should stop under...Show more →
If I use af for a landscape it's for convenience, with ageing eyesight MF is a slow process on an EVF, and the focus point chosen is onethird into the depthI want to be acceptably sharp using DoF. In that case accuracy to a meter or2 is usually not necessary. If the AF doesn't work, then use MF.
The on screen focus scale is unreliable in AF mode with anything wider than 23mm in my experience, you cannot use it to sread off precise infinity focus, or any shorter distance, it does however seem to work well when using the 14 (or my 18-55 at 18mm) on MF, when using hyperfocal focussung.
If you focus a lens beyond infinity, I.e with a shorter back focus than it's nodal point, then you will see it instantly, softness is immediately obvious. A problem we've had since we started adapting old lenses with poorly made adapters. And 50m isn't infinity on any lens.
Difficult to compare this feature with Sony (or Nikon) which have no useful focus indicators for their lenses, when I had Sony I used adapted lenses 99% of the time, with corrected adapters
Gerry
Geoff D F wrote
Nielk Mike wrote
Geoff D F wrote
Nielk Mike wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
It is far from “utterly unusable,” but performance is uneven. My experience:Shooting small primes for street/travel the focus accuracy is usually quite good. It isn’t as fast as the fastest from other brands, but it is effectively fast.
Oddly, I have had a less satisfying experience with zooms, including the 16-55mm f/2.8, the 50-140mm f/2.8, and the 100-400mm. I’m still trying to understand why this is. To some extent it appears to be somewhat an issue of consistency — last week I was photographing at a wildlife refuge and I got some quite decent stuff from the 100-400 when shooting landscape subjects, but not quite as good or as consistent with wildlife, which was birds that were mostly nearly stationary.
Some recent misses with the 50-140 has perplexed me, since it has been been very sharp and accurate in the past, Still trying to figure that one out.
Generally the “misses” are still usable, but just not as sharp as i expect.
Take a lens where infinity focus is already achieved when the distance indicator bar is not underneath the infinity mark but under the "0" of the 10m mark (my 14mm is such a lens, but also the 10-24 at the wide end. Same for the 15-45 and 18-55). Using AF, the distance indicator should stop under...Show more →
If I use af for a landscape it's for convenience, with ageing eyesight MF is a slow process on an EVF, and the focus point chosen is onethird into the depthI want to be acceptably sharp using DoF. In that case accuracy to a meter or2 is usually not necessary. If the AF doesn't work, then use MF.
The on screen focus scale is unreliable in AF mode with anything wider than 23mm in my experience, you cannot use it to sread off precise infinity focus, or any shorter distance, it does however seem to work well when using the 14 (or my 18-55 at 18mm) on MF, when using hyperfocal focussung.
If you focus a lens beyond infinity, I.e with a shorter back focus than it's nodal point, then you will see it instantly, softness is immediately obvious. A problem we've had since we started adapting old lenses with poorly made adapters. And 50m isn't infinity on any lens.
Difficult to compare this feature with Sony (or Nikon) which have no useful focus indicators for their lenses, when I had Sony I used adapted lenses 99% of the time, with corrected adapters
Gerry
Nov 24, 2025 at 06:16 AM
p.4 #8Fuji's marketing concept?
My experience is very different. With prime lenses, the focus scale is very accurate and reliable. Forget zoom lenses, cause they are not parfocal.
Focus beyond infinity is only obvious in the EVF if the camera focuses the lens a lot beyond infinity. But that is not what the cameras do. They just focus a small bit beyond infinity, which results in an overall softness of the image that is hardly or not at all to see in the EVF when shooting. It becomes apparent when looking at the image at 100% and cropping.
Focus beyond infinity is only obvious in the EVF if the camera focuses the lens a lot beyond infinity. But that is not what the cameras do. They just focus a small bit beyond infinity, which results in an overall softness of the image that is hardly or not at all to see in the EVF when shooting. It becomes apparent when looking at the image at 100% and cropping.
Nov 24, 2025 at 06:38 AM
p.4 #9Fuji's marketing concept?
Nielk Mike wrote:
My experience is very different. With prime lenses, the focus scale is very accurate and reliable. Forget zoom lenses, cause they are not parfocal.
Focus beyond infinity is only obvious in the EVF if the camera focuses the lens a lot beyond infinity. But that is not what the cameras do. They just focus a small bit beyond infinity, which results in an overall softness of the image that is hardly or not at all to see in the EVF when shooting. It becomes apparent when looking at the image at 100% and cropping.
This seems to be a problem that no one else experiences or at least regards as a significant problem. As mentioned, for most landscapes I don't want infinity focus and if I did and focus was critical I'd likely manual focus and confirm with magnified view. Then again, I'm still working with cameras with 1990s AF systems, and anything made by any manufacturer today is literally decades ahead in terms of capability.
My experience is very different. With prime lenses, the focus scale is very accurate and reliable. Forget zoom lenses, cause they are not parfocal.
Focus beyond infinity is only obvious in the EVF if the camera focuses the lens a lot beyond infinity. But that is not what the cameras do. They just focus a small bit beyond infinity, which results in an overall softness of the image that is hardly or not at all to see in the EVF when shooting. It becomes apparent when looking at the image at 100% and cropping.
This seems to be a problem that no one else experiences or at least regards as a significant problem. As mentioned, for most landscapes I don't want infinity focus and if I did and focus was critical I'd likely manual focus and confirm with magnified view. Then again, I'm still working with cameras with 1990s AF systems, and anything made by any manufacturer today is literally decades ahead in terms of capability.
Nov 24, 2025 at 08:49 PM
p.4 #10Fuji's marketing concept?
Geoff D F wrote:
Focus beyond infinity is only obvious in the EVF if the camera focuses the lens a lot beyond infinity. But that is not what the cameras do. They just focus a small bit beyond infinity, which results in an overall softness of the image that is hardly or not at all to see in the EVF when shooting. It becomes apparent when looking at the image at 100% and cropping.This seems to be a problem that no one else experiences or at least regards as a significant problem. As mentioned, for most landscapes I don't want infinity focus and if I did and focus was critical I'd likely manual focus and confirm with magnified view. Then again, I'm still working with cameras with 1990s AF systems, and anything made by any manufacturer today is literally decades ahead in terms of capability.
Geoff, there are many others who have the same issue and live with it. So do I . My use of Fuji cameras is mostly in MF, and AF with lenses that don't show issues, like the 35f2, 50mmf2 or 90f2. Power to everyone who doesn't experience Fuji's AF-S issues.
Nielk Mike wrote
My experience is very different. With prime lenses, the focus scale is very accurate and reliable. Forget zoom lenses, cause they are not parfocal.Focus beyond infinity is only obvious in the EVF if the camera focuses the lens a lot beyond infinity. But that is not what the cameras do. They just focus a small bit beyond infinity, which results in an overall softness of the image that is hardly or not at all to see in the EVF when shooting. It becomes apparent when looking at the image at 100% and cropping.
Geoff, there are many others who have the same issue and live with it. So do I . My use of Fuji cameras is mostly in MF, and AF with lenses that don't show issues, like the 35f2, 50mmf2 or 90f2. Power to everyone who doesn't experience Fuji's AF-S issues.
Nov 25, 2025 at 02:04 AM
|
p.4 #11Fuji's marketing concept?
Nielk Mike wrote:
Focus beyond infinity is only obvious in the EVF if the camera focuses the lens a lot beyond infinity. But that is not what the cameras do. They just focus a small bit beyond infinity, which results in an overall softness of the image that is hardly or not at all to see in the EVF when shooting. It becomes apparent when looking at the image at 100% and cropping.This seems to be a problem that no one else experiences or at least regards as a significant problem. As mentioned, for most landscapes I don't want infinity focus and if I did and focus was critical I'd likely manual focus and confirm with magnified view. Then again, I'm still working with cameras with 1990s AF systems, and anything made by any manufacturer today is literally decades ahead in terms of capability.Geoff, there are many others who have the same issue and live with it. So do I . My use of Fuji cameras is mostly in MF, and AF with lenses that don't show issues, like the 35f2, 50mmf2 or 90f2. Power to everyone who doesn't experience Fuji's AF-S issues.
We sort of went though this maybe a year ago, didn’t we?
I recall doing some testing with some of my lenses and Fujifilm AF (XT5 and some primes) and I could never detect a problem.
I’ll grant one possibility — though only a possibility, and I’ll have to test it myself: Sometimes when using some good Fujifilm zoom lenses I encounter some soft focus that surprises me, and it can seem a bit inconsistent. Is it “focusing beyond infinity” or something else? At some point I’ll set up a test and see what I can discover.
My sense, after shooting various Fujifilm cameras and lenses for over a dozen years is that “focusing beyond infinity” isn’t an issue in real world photography.
As to Mike’s claim that “many others” have this problem, I think that’s an inaccurate description. I’ll grant him that “some others” have reported it, but if it were “many others” we all would be encountering the problem in our photography or as a major subject in forums.
Geoff D F wrote
Nielk Mike wrote
My experience is very different. With prime lenses, the focus scale is very accurate and reliable. Forget zoom lenses, cause they are not parfocal.Focus beyond infinity is only obvious in the EVF if the camera focuses the lens a lot beyond infinity. But that is not what the cameras do. They just focus a small bit beyond infinity, which results in an overall softness of the image that is hardly or not at all to see in the EVF when shooting. It becomes apparent when looking at the image at 100% and cropping.
We sort of went though this maybe a year ago, didn’t we?
I recall doing some testing with some of my lenses and Fujifilm AF (XT5 and some primes) and I could never detect a problem.
I’ll grant one possibility — though only a possibility, and I’ll have to test it myself: Sometimes when using some good Fujifilm zoom lenses I encounter some soft focus that surprises me, and it can seem a bit inconsistent. Is it “focusing beyond infinity” or something else? At some point I’ll set up a test and see what I can discover.
My sense, after shooting various Fujifilm cameras and lenses for over a dozen years is that “focusing beyond infinity” isn’t an issue in real world photography.
As to Mike’s claim that “many others” have this problem, I think that’s an inaccurate description. I’ll grant him that “some others” have reported it, but if it were “many others” we all would be encountering the problem in our photography or as a major subject in forums.
Nov 25, 2025 at 10:10 AM
p.4 #12Fuji's marketing concept?
gdanmitchell wrote:
Focus beyond infinity is only obvious in the EVF if the camera focuses the lens a lot beyond infinity. But that is not what the cameras do. They just focus a small bit beyond infinity, which results in an overall softness of the image that is hardly or not at all to see in the EVF when shooting. It becomes apparent when looking at the image at 100% and cropping.This seems to be a problem that no one else experiences or at least regards as a significant problem. As mentioned, for most landscapes I don't want infinity focus and if I did and focus was critical I'd likely manual focus and confirm with magnified view. Then again, I'm still working with cameras with 1990s AF systems, and anything made by any manufacturer today is literally decades ahead in terms of capability.Geoff, there are many others who have the same issue and live with it. So do I . My use of Fuji cameras is mostly in MF, and AF with lenses that don't show issues, like the 35f2, 50mmf2 or 90f2. Power to everyone who doesn't experience Fuji's AF-S issues.We sort of went though this maybe a year ago, didn’t we?
I recall doing some testing with some of my lenses and Fujifilm AF (XT5 and some primes) and I could never detect a problem.
I’ll grant one possibility — though only a possibility, and I’ll have to test it myself: Sometimes when using some good Fujifilm zoom lenses I encounter some soft focus that surprises me, and it can seem a bit inconsistent. Is it “focusing beyond infinity” or something else? At some point I’ll set up a test and see what I can discover.
My sense, after shooting various...Show more →
Dan, there have been "tumultuous" discussion here, and mainly on dpreview, for a long time. And in those discussion, many folks came forward and reported the same issues: Focus beyond infinity and inconsistent AF-S. Those issues don't render the Fuji system useless, of course, and there are a number of ways to make sure the result is a sharp image.
But (for me) it takes more work than using my a7cR or RX1rMkIII. The "inconsistent" AF-S is being cured mainly by DoF as it happens with WA lenses mostly. But: At a pixel level (important for like 2x crop) the critical focus area is rather thin.
What I find more troublesome is the focus beyond infinity. It introduces an overall softness of the image that, again, folks who don't crop much will not notice or will not be bothered by. But please look into it a bit more when you have time.
Focus beyond infinity can be counteracted against by use of the Distance Limiter Function. Set so that the blue Distance Indicator bar just reaches the right side of the scale, it prevents that FBI issues almost completely. Started with the X-T3 and is very useful. Of course, in order to work it needs lenses that are focused at infinity when the Distance Indicator bar is at the right side of the Distance Bar. Some lenses (like my 14mm) are not, and all zooms I have owned were not at the wide end. One reason I only use primes with my Fujis.
Of my six most used primes (16f2.8, 23f2, 27f2.8, 35f2, 50f2 and 90f2) only the 50 and 90 never show any AF-S issues. The 35 also is mostly okay, but the 16, 23 and 27 are affected. Of my 1.4/1.2 lenses, the 35 and 56 are also okay, the 16 and 23 show issues.
So, for those who never saw an issue: Perfect. Keep going and enjoy! For those who do: You probably already know how to manage to get sharp images anyway.
Nielk Mike wrote
Geoff D F wrote
Nielk Mike wrote
My experience is very different. With prime lenses, the focus scale is very accurate and reliable. Forget zoom lenses, cause they are not parfocal.Focus beyond infinity is only obvious in the EVF if the camera focuses the lens a lot beyond infinity. But that is not what the cameras do. They just focus a small bit beyond infinity, which results in an overall softness of the image that is hardly or not at all to see in the EVF when shooting. It becomes apparent when looking at the image at 100% and cropping.
I recall doing some testing with some of my lenses and Fujifilm AF (XT5 and some primes) and I could never detect a problem.
I’ll grant one possibility — though only a possibility, and I’ll have to test it myself: Sometimes when using some good Fujifilm zoom lenses I encounter some soft focus that surprises me, and it can seem a bit inconsistent. Is it “focusing beyond infinity” or something else? At some point I’ll set up a test and see what I can discover.
My sense, after shooting various...Show more →
Dan, there have been "tumultuous" discussion here, and mainly on dpreview, for a long time. And in those discussion, many folks came forward and reported the same issues: Focus beyond infinity and inconsistent AF-S. Those issues don't render the Fuji system useless, of course, and there are a number of ways to make sure the result is a sharp image.
But (for me) it takes more work than using my a7cR or RX1rMkIII. The "inconsistent" AF-S is being cured mainly by DoF as it happens with WA lenses mostly. But: At a pixel level (important for like 2x crop) the critical focus area is rather thin.
What I find more troublesome is the focus beyond infinity. It introduces an overall softness of the image that, again, folks who don't crop much will not notice or will not be bothered by. But please look into it a bit more when you have time.
Focus beyond infinity can be counteracted against by use of the Distance Limiter Function. Set so that the blue Distance Indicator bar just reaches the right side of the scale, it prevents that FBI issues almost completely. Started with the X-T3 and is very useful. Of course, in order to work it needs lenses that are focused at infinity when the Distance Indicator bar is at the right side of the Distance Bar. Some lenses (like my 14mm) are not, and all zooms I have owned were not at the wide end. One reason I only use primes with my Fujis.
Of my six most used primes (16f2.8, 23f2, 27f2.8, 35f2, 50f2 and 90f2) only the 50 and 90 never show any AF-S issues. The 35 also is mostly okay, but the 16, 23 and 27 are affected. Of my 1.4/1.2 lenses, the 35 and 56 are also okay, the 16 and 23 show issues.
So, for those who never saw an issue: Perfect. Keep going and enjoy! For those who do: You probably already know how to manage to get sharp images anyway.
Nov 25, 2025 at 10:40 AM
p.4 #13Fuji's marketing concept?
Nielk Mike wrote:
Focus beyond infinity is only obvious in the EVF if the camera focuses the lens a lot beyond infinity. But that is not what the cameras do. They just focus a small bit beyond infinity, which results in an overall softness of the image that is hardly or not at all to see in the EVF when shooting. It becomes apparent when looking at the image at 100% and cropping.This seems to be a problem that no one else experiences or at least regards as a significant problem. As mentioned, for most landscapes I don't want infinity focus and if I did and focus was critical I'd likely manual focus and confirm with magnified view. Then again, I'm still working with cameras with 1990s AF systems, and anything made by any manufacturer today is literally decades ahead in terms of capability.Geoff, there are many others who have the same issue and live with it. So do I . My use of Fuji cameras is mostly in MF, and AF with lenses that don't show issues, like the 35f2, 50mmf2 or 90f2. Power to everyone who doesn't experience Fuji's AF-S issues.We sort of went though this maybe a year ago, didn’t we?
I recall doing some testing with some of my lenses and Fujifilm AF (XT5 and some primes) and I could never detect a problem.
I’ll grant one possibility — though only a possibility, and I’ll have to test it myself: Sometimes when using some good Fujifilm zoom lenses I encounter some soft focus that surprises me, and it can seem a bit inconsistent. Is it “focusing beyond infinity” or something else? At some point I’ll set up a test and see what I can discover.
My sense, after shooting various Fujifilm cameras and lenses for over a dozen years is that “focusing beyond infinity” isn’t an issue in real world photography.
As to Mike’s claim that “many others” have this problem, I think that’s an inaccurate description. I’ll grant him that “some others” have reported it, but if it were “many others” we all would be encountering the problem in our photography or as a major subject in forums.Dan, there have been "tumultuous" discussion here, and mainly on dpreview, for a long time. And in those discussion, many folks came forward and reported the same issues: Focus beyond infinity and inconsistent AF-S. Those issues don't render the Fuji system useless, of course, and there are a number of ways to make sure the result is a sharp image.
But (for me) it takes more work than using my a7cR or RX1rMkIII. The "inconsistent" AF-S is being cured mainly by DoF as it happens with WA lenses mostly. But: At a pixel level (important for like 2x crop) the...Show more →
I don’t know what a “tumultuous” discussion is. I’m positive that there have been _some_ discussions — including the many that you have started on FM — but hardly anyone brings this up. As far as I can tell, no one but you brings it up on FM. I don’t follow those other forums, but a year or so ago I looked at DPR (?) and found a handful. But that’s it.
Now, for all I know, a “problem” unique to Fujifilm cameras related to focusing “beyond infinity” may exist, but it sure isn’t something that many people are noting, complaining about, or pointing out as a downside to Fujifilm gear. That suggests that either it is some normal thing that you (and a small number of others) have latched onto, an issue of such small magnitude that no one sees it in their photos, and/or the sort of thing that can be detected in careful testing but which doesn’t have a real effect on photographs.
I know you’ll remain unconvinced by my perspective on this — we’ve been through it before. But you must also understand by now that hardly anyone (I did not write “no one”) sees this problem.
That being said, when I get the right opportunity, I will test my zoom lenses and see if I can find some evidence of such an issue. (I did test it with my primes last year and could not replicate the problem that you described, even though I tried to with situations that should challenge the accuracy and repeatablility of the AF system.)
gdanmitchell wrote
Nielk Mike wrote
Geoff D F wrote
Nielk Mike wrote
My experience is very different. With prime lenses, the focus scale is very accurate and reliable. Forget zoom lenses, cause they are not parfocal.Focus beyond infinity is only obvious in the EVF if the camera focuses the lens a lot beyond infinity. But that is not what the cameras do. They just focus a small bit beyond infinity, which results in an overall softness of the image that is hardly or not at all to see in the EVF when shooting. It becomes apparent when looking at the image at 100% and cropping.
I recall doing some testing with some of my lenses and Fujifilm AF (XT5 and some primes) and I could never detect a problem.
I’ll grant one possibility — though only a possibility, and I’ll have to test it myself: Sometimes when using some good Fujifilm zoom lenses I encounter some soft focus that surprises me, and it can seem a bit inconsistent. Is it “focusing beyond infinity” or something else? At some point I’ll set up a test and see what I can discover.
My sense, after shooting various Fujifilm cameras and lenses for over a dozen years is that “focusing beyond infinity” isn’t an issue in real world photography.
As to Mike’s claim that “many others” have this problem, I think that’s an inaccurate description. I’ll grant him that “some others” have reported it, but if it were “many others” we all would be encountering the problem in our photography or as a major subject in forums.
But (for me) it takes more work than using my a7cR or RX1rMkIII. The "inconsistent" AF-S is being cured mainly by DoF as it happens with WA lenses mostly. But: At a pixel level (important for like 2x crop) the...Show more →
I don’t know what a “tumultuous” discussion is. I’m positive that there have been _some_ discussions — including the many that you have started on FM — but hardly anyone brings this up. As far as I can tell, no one but you brings it up on FM. I don’t follow those other forums, but a year or so ago I looked at DPR (?) and found a handful. But that’s it.
Now, for all I know, a “problem” unique to Fujifilm cameras related to focusing “beyond infinity” may exist, but it sure isn’t something that many people are noting, complaining about, or pointing out as a downside to Fujifilm gear. That suggests that either it is some normal thing that you (and a small number of others) have latched onto, an issue of such small magnitude that no one sees it in their photos, and/or the sort of thing that can be detected in careful testing but which doesn’t have a real effect on photographs.
I know you’ll remain unconvinced by my perspective on this — we’ve been through it before. But you must also understand by now that hardly anyone (I did not write “no one”) sees this problem.
That being said, when I get the right opportunity, I will test my zoom lenses and see if I can find some evidence of such an issue. (I did test it with my primes last year and could not replicate the problem that you described, even though I tried to with situations that should challenge the accuracy and repeatablility of the AF system.)
Nov 25, 2025 at 03:20 PM
p.4 #14Fuji's marketing concept?
Dan, the community here is very different from other fora, English or German. Here, the miniMF takes a lot more space than anywhere else. For me, there is no need to convince anyone that Fuji AF-S has issues. If the AF works for someone, great!
For me, the difference between using my a7cr and my X-E5 is: With the Sony, I just aim and let the camera do the AF. With my Fujis, I use MF, and if I use AF, I always check what the distance indicator shows. That is a very different experience. it makes me use my Sony for social events. No doubt, my Fuji would return 95% sharp images, too. But I just don't trust the AF (for a reason). The good thing is: Most of my shooting is slow out in the streets and countryside. It affords me the time to manually dial in focus. And over time, it has become part of why I like to use my Fujis.
What I don't understand to this day is what causes the AF-S issues. It is mostly confined to WA lenses wider than 35mm, and worse when stopped down. So my guess is that is has something to do with how the camera identifies critical focus when there is a more or less deep area of "sharpness", like when stopped down with a large DoF, or with WA lenses which have a wider range of sharpness in the distance even wide open.
When I received my X-E5, the first thin I did was testing my 14 and 16 mm lenses for the AF-S inconsistencies and the Focus Beyond Infinity. It showed the same behavior as my X-T3, X-Pro3 and X-E3.
But lets not take this further. Those who have encountered the issue either blamed themselves, sold their Fujis or learned to live the limitations. For me, making sure the camera has set focus correctly has become second nature with my Fujis.
For me, the difference between using my a7cr and my X-E5 is: With the Sony, I just aim and let the camera do the AF. With my Fujis, I use MF, and if I use AF, I always check what the distance indicator shows. That is a very different experience. it makes me use my Sony for social events. No doubt, my Fuji would return 95% sharp images, too. But I just don't trust the AF (for a reason). The good thing is: Most of my shooting is slow out in the streets and countryside. It affords me the time to manually dial in focus. And over time, it has become part of why I like to use my Fujis.
What I don't understand to this day is what causes the AF-S issues. It is mostly confined to WA lenses wider than 35mm, and worse when stopped down. So my guess is that is has something to do with how the camera identifies critical focus when there is a more or less deep area of "sharpness", like when stopped down with a large DoF, or with WA lenses which have a wider range of sharpness in the distance even wide open.
When I received my X-E5, the first thin I did was testing my 14 and 16 mm lenses for the AF-S inconsistencies and the Focus Beyond Infinity. It showed the same behavior as my X-T3, X-Pro3 and X-E3.
But lets not take this further. Those who have encountered the issue either blamed themselves, sold their Fujis or learned to live the limitations. For me, making sure the camera has set focus correctly has become second nature with my Fujis.
Nov 26, 2025 at 12:57 AM
p.4 #15Fuji's marketing concept?
Steve Spencer wrote:
SGinNorcal wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
EB-1 wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
EB-1 wrote
What about the 40x53mm MF Phase One sensors like with Hasselbald? I suppose we need a format name for the 33x44mm frame but it is not the largest. EBH(Film medium formats were defined by their use of film with a 6cm width, which allowed an image area of up to about 56mm in the dimension using the width of the film.)
The main reason I avoided the "miniMF" was that it is isn't enough more than single frames from 24x36 to replace the panning/stitching.
EBH
Another way of looking at the differences between the three sensors is to compare the largest amounts of light they can collect (at base ISO, assuming no bias in how the different system define ISO).
The GFX100 sensor collects 1 stop of light more than a FF sensor, while a FF sensor collects 1.5 stops more light than the APS-C.
Nov 26, 2025 at 07:41 AM
p.4 #16Fuji's marketing concept?
Nielk Mike wrote:
Dan, the community here is very different from other fora, English or German. Here, the miniMF takes a lot more space than anywhere else. For me, there is no need to convince anyone that Fuji AF-S has issues. If the AF works for someone, great!
For me, the difference between using my a7cr and my X-E5 is: With the Sony, I just aim and let the camera do the AF. With my Fujis, I use MF, and if I use AF, I always check what the distance indicator shows. That is a very different experience. it makes me use my...Show more →
I think you attach far too much importance to the readout on the on screen distance scale when used in af-s with wide angke lenses. There was a long discussion here about this some time ago, and the issue was put to Fuji in Japan I think, by someone with 'connections' but I don’t remember any response. It doesn't take much experience to see that the scales are inaccurate with lenses wider than 23mm when used with af-s, readings quite random, and at variance with the actual focus point,which in my experience is right most of the time. As much accuracy as can be expected when DoF is great and the amount of movement of the lens group is so small as it inevitably is with short focal lengths.
I repeat though that when used with MF and for scale focussing I am happy with using them, and no other system has anything as useful.
The stopped down inaccuracy too has been commented on, likely due to Fuji choosing to use the lens stopped down when using af-s. The work around,if you really need af on a low light subject and f/16, is to use BBF, when Fuji seems to use max aperture for focussing. Heaven knows why tge distinction.
Gerry
Dan, the community here is very different from other fora, English or German. Here, the miniMF takes a lot more space than anywhere else. For me, there is no need to convince anyone that Fuji AF-S has issues. If the AF works for someone, great!
For me, the difference between using my a7cr and my X-E5 is: With the Sony, I just aim and let the camera do the AF. With my Fujis, I use MF, and if I use AF, I always check what the distance indicator shows. That is a very different experience. it makes me use my...Show more →
I think you attach far too much importance to the readout on the on screen distance scale when used in af-s with wide angke lenses. There was a long discussion here about this some time ago, and the issue was put to Fuji in Japan I think, by someone with 'connections' but I don’t remember any response. It doesn't take much experience to see that the scales are inaccurate with lenses wider than 23mm when used with af-s, readings quite random, and at variance with the actual focus point,which in my experience is right most of the time. As much accuracy as can be expected when DoF is great and the amount of movement of the lens group is so small as it inevitably is with short focal lengths.
I repeat though that when used with MF and for scale focussing I am happy with using them, and no other system has anything as useful.
The stopped down inaccuracy too has been commented on, likely due to Fuji choosing to use the lens stopped down when using af-s. The work around,if you really need af on a low light subject and f/16, is to use BBF, when Fuji seems to use max aperture for focussing. Heaven knows why tge distinction.
Gerry
Nov 27, 2025 at 08:04 AM
p.4 #17Fuji's marketing concept?
ruthenium wrote:
(Film medium formats were defined by their use of film with a 6cm width, which allowed an image area of up to about 56mm in the dimension using the width of the film.)Exactly. Some gates were 54 or 55 mm and even so they didn't go through all that straight.
The main reason I avoided the "miniMF" was that it is isn't enough more than single frames from 24x36 to replace the panning/stitching.
EBHAnother frame of reference is to note that the difference between FF and minMF is about half the size of the difference between APS-C and FF.But that's only true if you view it as a percentage increase like you must be in order to make this claim. If you look at sensor area, its not true at all.It isn't even true as a percentage increase, but that doesn't stop Dan from saying it over and over again. Fuji APS-C has an area of 367 square mm. Full frame 35mm has an area of 864 square mm. FF 35mm is 2.35 times larger in area. Half of that would be 1.17 times as large. The 33 X 44 sensor has an area of 1452 square mm, which is 1.68 times as large as FF 35mm, so much larger than 1.17 times half the the size difference between APS-C and FF 35mm.Another way of looking at the differences between the three sensors is to compare the largest amounts of light they can collect (at base ISO, assuming no bias in how the different system define ISO).
The GFX100 sensor collects 1 stop of light more than a FF sensor, while a FF sensor collects 1.5 stops more light than the APS-C.
The “larger sensor collects more light” business always intrigues me.
On one level, it is true. More photons fall on a larger area.
On the other hand, consider an analogy. Let’s say my garden occupies a half acre and my next door neighbor’s garden occupies a full acre. It is true that twice as much rain falls on my neighbors garden, but if my neighbor gets one inch of rain, so do I. A plant in my garden that needs and inch or rain does just as well as a plant in his that needs an inch or rain, and plants that require two incenses are rain fail in both.
Unless…
… each plant collects water from an area twice as large in his garden.
So the potential benefit of the larger garden accrues in two says:
1. You can fit twice as many plants requiring an inch of water into the larger garden, OR
2. You can can reduce the number of plants in the larger garden and grow plants that require more water.
The analogy here, as far as I can tell, is that a larger sensor can:
1. Allow more photo sites and those record more detail, OR…
2. Allow images to be made in somewhat lower light.
(Or some balance of the two.)
So, the business about “more light on the larger sensor” providing better low light performance would not see to work if we compare sensors with the same pixel pitch. (Which I think is the case when we compare the high resolution Sony sensors of different sizes used in APS-C, full-frame, and mniMF cameras these days.) Each “plant” (e.g. photo sites) gets the same number of photons in all three cases.
There are a couple of “complexifying” issues:
1. The “noise grain” will be finer with the larger sensor, given that each photo site is a smaller percentage of the frame size. So if the size of the grain is an issue, the larger sensor with the same pixel pitch will produce a slightly “smoother” (subjectively) image.
2. There are obviously different DOF and aperture choice (relative to diffraction) imperatives with different size sensors.
Steve Spencer wrote
SGinNorcal wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
EB-1 wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
That one is pretty easy. It is nominally the same as the 41.5mm x 56mm area of the 645 film MF, which is probably why Phase One chose to make it that size. If a true digital equivalent to film medium format exists, it would be about that size. (Note that its short dimension is close to the long dimension of the 44x44 format.)(Film medium formats were defined by their use of film with a 6cm width, which allowed an image area of up to about 56mm in the dimension using the width of the film.)
The main reason I avoided the "miniMF" was that it is isn't enough more than single frames from 24x36 to replace the panning/stitching.
EBH
The GFX100 sensor collects 1 stop of light more than a FF sensor, while a FF sensor collects 1.5 stops more light than the APS-C.
The “larger sensor collects more light” business always intrigues me.
On one level, it is true. More photons fall on a larger area.
On the other hand, consider an analogy. Let’s say my garden occupies a half acre and my next door neighbor’s garden occupies a full acre. It is true that twice as much rain falls on my neighbors garden, but if my neighbor gets one inch of rain, so do I. A plant in my garden that needs and inch or rain does just as well as a plant in his that needs an inch or rain, and plants that require two incenses are rain fail in both.
Unless…
… each plant collects water from an area twice as large in his garden.
So the potential benefit of the larger garden accrues in two says:
1. You can fit twice as many plants requiring an inch of water into the larger garden, OR
2. You can can reduce the number of plants in the larger garden and grow plants that require more water.
The analogy here, as far as I can tell, is that a larger sensor can:
1. Allow more photo sites and those record more detail, OR…
2. Allow images to be made in somewhat lower light.
(Or some balance of the two.)
So, the business about “more light on the larger sensor” providing better low light performance would not see to work if we compare sensors with the same pixel pitch. (Which I think is the case when we compare the high resolution Sony sensors of different sizes used in APS-C, full-frame, and mniMF cameras these days.) Each “plant” (e.g. photo sites) gets the same number of photons in all three cases.
There are a couple of “complexifying” issues:
1. The “noise grain” will be finer with the larger sensor, given that each photo site is a smaller percentage of the frame size. So if the size of the grain is an issue, the larger sensor with the same pixel pitch will produce a slightly “smoother” (subjectively) image.
2. There are obviously different DOF and aperture choice (relative to diffraction) imperatives with different size sensors.
Nov 27, 2025 at 09:49 AM
p.4 #18Fuji's marketing concept?
gyoung143 wrote:
For me, the difference between using my a7cr and my X-E5 is: With the Sony, I just aim and let the camera do the AF. With my Fujis, I use MF, and if I use AF, I always check what the distance indicator shows. That is a very different experience. it makes me use my Sony for social events. No doubt, my Fuji would return 95% sharp images, too. But I just don't trust the AF (for a reason). The good thing is: Most of my shooting is slow out in the streets and countryside. It affords me the time to manually dial in focus. And over time, it has become part of why I like to use my Fujis.
What I don't understand to this day is what causes the AF-S issues. It is mostly confined to WA lenses wider than 35mm, and worse when stopped down. So my guess is that is has something to do with how the camera identifies critical focus when there is a more or less deep area of "sharpness", like when stopped down with a large DoF, or with WA lenses which have a wider range of sharpness in the distance even wide open.
When I received my X-E5, the first thin I did was testing my 14 and 16 mm lenses for the AF-S inconsistencies and the Focus Beyond Infinity. It showed the same behavior as my X-T3, X-Pro3 and X-E3.
But lets not take this further. Those who have encountered the issue either blamed themselves, sold their Fujis or learned to live the limitations. For me, making sure the camera has set focus correctly has become second nature with my Fujis.I think you attach far too much importance to the readout on the on screen distance scale when used in af-s with wide angke lenses. There was a long discussion here about this some time ago, and the issue was put to Fuji in Japan I think, by someone with 'connections' but I don’t remember any response. It doesn't take much experience to see that the scales are inaccurate with lenses wider than 23mm when used with af-s, readings quite random, and at variance with the actual focus point,which in my experience is right most of the time. As much...Show more →
The Distance Scale returns pretty accurate information. But some wide angle lenses (the 14 mm) and all zooms I have owned don't reach infinity focus when the indicator is underneath the infinity symbol. Infinity focus with those lenses lies in front of the infinity symbol. With all my primes (except the 14mm), the Distance Indicator is spot on.
Nielk Mike wrote
Dan, the community here is very different from other fora, English or German. Here, the miniMF takes a lot more space than anywhere else. For me, there is no need to convince anyone that Fuji AF-S has issues. If the AF works for someone, great!For me, the difference between using my a7cr and my X-E5 is: With the Sony, I just aim and let the camera do the AF. With my Fujis, I use MF, and if I use AF, I always check what the distance indicator shows. That is a very different experience. it makes me use my Sony for social events. No doubt, my Fuji would return 95% sharp images, too. But I just don't trust the AF (for a reason). The good thing is: Most of my shooting is slow out in the streets and countryside. It affords me the time to manually dial in focus. And over time, it has become part of why I like to use my Fujis.
What I don't understand to this day is what causes the AF-S issues. It is mostly confined to WA lenses wider than 35mm, and worse when stopped down. So my guess is that is has something to do with how the camera identifies critical focus when there is a more or less deep area of "sharpness", like when stopped down with a large DoF, or with WA lenses which have a wider range of sharpness in the distance even wide open.
When I received my X-E5, the first thin I did was testing my 14 and 16 mm lenses for the AF-S inconsistencies and the Focus Beyond Infinity. It showed the same behavior as my X-T3, X-Pro3 and X-E3.
But lets not take this further. Those who have encountered the issue either blamed themselves, sold their Fujis or learned to live the limitations. For me, making sure the camera has set focus correctly has become second nature with my Fujis.
The Distance Scale returns pretty accurate information. But some wide angle lenses (the 14 mm) and all zooms I have owned don't reach infinity focus when the indicator is underneath the infinity symbol. Infinity focus with those lenses lies in front of the infinity symbol. With all my primes (except the 14mm), the Distance Indicator is spot on.
Nov 27, 2025 at 10:51 AM
p.4 #19Fuji's marketing concept?
gdanmitchell wrote:
The main reason I avoided the "miniMF" was that it is isn't enough more than single frames from 24x36 to replace the panning/stitching.
EBHAnother frame of reference is to note that the difference between FF and minMF is about half the size of the difference between APS-C and FF.But that's only true if you view it as a percentage increase like you must be in order to make this claim. If you look at sensor area, its not true at all.It isn't even true as a percentage increase, but that doesn't stop Dan from saying it over and over again. Fuji APS-C has an area of 367 square mm. Full frame 35mm has an area of 864 square mm. FF 35mm is 2.35 times larger in area. Half of that would be 1.17 times as large. The 33 X 44 sensor has an area of 1452 square mm, which is 1.68 times as large as FF 35mm, so much larger than 1.17 times half the the size difference between APS-C and FF 35mm.Another way of looking at the differences between the three sensors is to compare the largest amounts of light they can collect (at base ISO, assuming no bias in how the different system define ISO).
The GFX100 sensor collects 1 stop of light more than a FF sensor, while a FF sensor collects 1.5 stops more light than the APS-C.The “larger sensor collects more light” business always intrigues me.
On one level, it is true. More photons fall on a larger area.
On the other hand, consider an analogy. Let’s say my garden occupies a half acre and my next door neighbor’s garden occupies a full acre. It is true that twice as much rain falls on my neighbors garden, but if my neighbor gets one inch of rain, so do I. A plant in my garden that needs and inch or rain does just as well as a plant in his that needs an inch or rain, and plants...Show more →
Dan, I did NOT write “larger sensor collects more light” - this exact statement is literally meaningless.
A sensor collects only as much light as is allowed to reach the sensor through the attached lens, and up to a certain limit.
This amount of light is decided exclusively by the shutter speed and the physical size of the lens' iris.
In general, the size of a sensor does not directly correlate with the amount of light that falls on it. The same can be said about the pixel pitch.
What I said was very specific, about "the largest(!) amounts of light they can collect (at base ISO)" - with reference to the sensors of the GFX100, FF, and Fuji APS-C cameras. This is easy to tell by invoking the photographic equivalence, specifically that the ISO on sensors of different sizes relates via the square of the crop factor (which is also the ratio of the surface areas of the sensors).
For example, the square of the crop factor 0.79 is 0.62; thus, the base ISO 80 of the GFX100S II and GFX100 II is equivalent to ISO 80 x 0.62 = 50 on a FF sensor. ISO 50 is different from the base ISO of FF cameras (100) by a stop. Thus, the largest amount of light that a GFX100 sensor can collect (at ISO 80) is twice the largest amount of light that a FF sensor can possibly collect at the FF base ISO.
The same consideration can be used to show that a FF sensor can collect very close to 1.5 more stops of light compared to a Fuji APS-C camera, with both at base ISO (100 vs 125).
Regarding "different DOF and aperture choice (relative to diffraction) imperatives with different size sensors" - once again, these factors relate via the crop factor. For example, if the very first, barely noticeable signs of diffraction softening can be seen when pixel-peeping images from a FF camera at f/8, so the GFX images are expected to show this at 8/0.79 = f/10.
At the equivalent f-numbers, the DOF is also the same for sensors of different sizes.
I believe that the pixel pitch is practically irrelevant, while the relevant practical parameter in photography is the size of CoC (circle of confusion). To the best of my knowledge, several (6 - 13) photo sites are within a typical CoC. Something related to this is that a 24MP FF camera isn't in practice significantly different from a 60MP FF camera in terms of the dynamic range, despite the significant difference in the pixel pitch of the two.
ruthenium wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
SGinNorcal wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
EB-1 wrote
Exactly. Some gates were 54 or 55 mm and even so they didn't go through all that straight. The main reason I avoided the "miniMF" was that it is isn't enough more than single frames from 24x36 to replace the panning/stitching.
EBH
The GFX100 sensor collects 1 stop of light more than a FF sensor, while a FF sensor collects 1.5 stops more light than the APS-C.
On one level, it is true. More photons fall on a larger area.
On the other hand, consider an analogy. Let’s say my garden occupies a half acre and my next door neighbor’s garden occupies a full acre. It is true that twice as much rain falls on my neighbors garden, but if my neighbor gets one inch of rain, so do I. A plant in my garden that needs and inch or rain does just as well as a plant in his that needs an inch or rain, and plants...Show more →
Dan, I did NOT write “larger sensor collects more light” - this exact statement is literally meaningless.
A sensor collects only as much light as is allowed to reach the sensor through the attached lens, and up to a certain limit.
This amount of light is decided exclusively by the shutter speed and the physical size of the lens' iris.
In general, the size of a sensor does not directly correlate with the amount of light that falls on it. The same can be said about the pixel pitch.
What I said was very specific, about "the largest(!) amounts of light they can collect (at base ISO)" - with reference to the sensors of the GFX100, FF, and Fuji APS-C cameras. This is easy to tell by invoking the photographic equivalence, specifically that the ISO on sensors of different sizes relates via the square of the crop factor (which is also the ratio of the surface areas of the sensors).
For example, the square of the crop factor 0.79 is 0.62; thus, the base ISO 80 of the GFX100S II and GFX100 II is equivalent to ISO 80 x 0.62 = 50 on a FF sensor. ISO 50 is different from the base ISO of FF cameras (100) by a stop. Thus, the largest amount of light that a GFX100 sensor can collect (at ISO 80) is twice the largest amount of light that a FF sensor can possibly collect at the FF base ISO.
The same consideration can be used to show that a FF sensor can collect very close to 1.5 more stops of light compared to a Fuji APS-C camera, with both at base ISO (100 vs 125).
Regarding "different DOF and aperture choice (relative to diffraction) imperatives with different size sensors" - once again, these factors relate via the crop factor. For example, if the very first, barely noticeable signs of diffraction softening can be seen when pixel-peeping images from a FF camera at f/8, so the GFX images are expected to show this at 8/0.79 = f/10.
At the equivalent f-numbers, the DOF is also the same for sensors of different sizes.
I believe that the pixel pitch is practically irrelevant, while the relevant practical parameter in photography is the size of CoC (circle of confusion). To the best of my knowledge, several (6 - 13) photo sites are within a typical CoC. Something related to this is that a 24MP FF camera isn't in practice significantly different from a 60MP FF camera in terms of the dynamic range, despite the significant difference in the pixel pitch of the two.
Nov 27, 2025 at 12:31 PM
p.4 #20Fuji's marketing concept?
Nielk Mike wrote:
For me, the difference between using my a7cr and my X-E5 is: With the Sony, I just aim and let the camera do the AF. With my Fujis, I use MF, and if I use AF, I always check what the distance indicator shows. That is a very different experience. it makes me use my Sony for social events. No doubt, my Fuji would return 95% sharp images, too. But I just don't trust the AF (for a reason). The good thing is: Most of my shooting is slow out in the streets and countryside. It affords me the time to manually dial in focus. And over time, it has become part of why I like to use my Fujis.
What I don't understand to this day is what causes the AF-S issues. It is mostly confined to WA lenses wider than 35mm, and worse when stopped down. So my guess is that is has something to do with how the camera identifies critical focus when there is a more or less deep area of "sharpness", like when stopped down with a large DoF, or with WA lenses which have a wider range of sharpness in the distance even wide open.
When I received my X-E5, the first thin I did was testing my 14 and 16 mm lenses for the AF-S inconsistencies and the Focus Beyond Infinity. It showed the same behavior as my X-T3, X-Pro3 and X-E3.
But lets not take this further. Those who have encountered the issue either blamed themselves, sold their Fujis or learned to live the limitations. For me, making sure the camera has set focus correctly has become second nature with my Fujis.I think you attach far too much importance to the readout on the on screen distance scale when used in af-s with wide angke lenses. There was a long discussion here about this some time ago, and the issue was put to Fuji in Japan I think, by someone with 'connections' but I don’t remember any response. It doesn't take much experience to see that the scales are inaccurate with lenses wider than 23mm when used with af-s, readings quite random, and at variance with the actual focus point,which in my experience is right most of the time. As much accuracy as can be expected when DoF is great and the amount of movement of the lens group is so small as it inevitably is with short focal lengths.
I repeat though that when used with MF and for scale focussing I am happy with using them, and no other system has anything as useful.
The stopped down inaccuracy too has been commented on, likely due to Fuji choosing to use the lens stopped down when using af-s. The work around,if you really need af on a low light subject and f/16, is to use BBF, when Fuji seems to use max aperture for focussing. Heaven knows why tge distinction.
GerryThe Distance Scale returns pretty accurate information. But some wide angle lenses (the 14 mm) and all zooms I have owned don't reach infinity focus when the indicator is underneath the infinity symbol. Infinity focus with those lenses lies in front of the infinity symbol. With all my primes (except the 14mm), the Distance Indicator is spot on.
You mileage obviously varies, as they say. My observations of using my 14mm on Xpro2 and Xt3 since my early days with Fuji is that the indication is unreliable when af-s is used. You can focus several times on the same point in a scence and get a different reading each time, but I am satisfied that the actual focus point is the same, within minor and acceptable variation. Same thing happens with my 18-55 when on 18mm. 23mm f/2 I have behaves much more consistently.
Gerry
gyoung143 wrote
Nielk Mike wrote
Dan, the community here is very different from other fora, English or German. Here, the miniMF takes a lot more space than anywhere else. For me, there is no need to convince anyone that Fuji AF-S has issues. If the AF works for someone, great!For me, the difference between using my a7cr and my X-E5 is: With the Sony, I just aim and let the camera do the AF. With my Fujis, I use MF, and if I use AF, I always check what the distance indicator shows. That is a very different experience. it makes me use my Sony for social events. No doubt, my Fuji would return 95% sharp images, too. But I just don't trust the AF (for a reason). The good thing is: Most of my shooting is slow out in the streets and countryside. It affords me the time to manually dial in focus. And over time, it has become part of why I like to use my Fujis.
What I don't understand to this day is what causes the AF-S issues. It is mostly confined to WA lenses wider than 35mm, and worse when stopped down. So my guess is that is has something to do with how the camera identifies critical focus when there is a more or less deep area of "sharpness", like when stopped down with a large DoF, or with WA lenses which have a wider range of sharpness in the distance even wide open.
When I received my X-E5, the first thin I did was testing my 14 and 16 mm lenses for the AF-S inconsistencies and the Focus Beyond Infinity. It showed the same behavior as my X-T3, X-Pro3 and X-E3.
But lets not take this further. Those who have encountered the issue either blamed themselves, sold their Fujis or learned to live the limitations. For me, making sure the camera has set focus correctly has become second nature with my Fujis.
I repeat though that when used with MF and for scale focussing I am happy with using them, and no other system has anything as useful.
The stopped down inaccuracy too has been commented on, likely due to Fuji choosing to use the lens stopped down when using af-s. The work around,if you really need af on a low light subject and f/16, is to use BBF, when Fuji seems to use max aperture for focussing. Heaven knows why tge distinction.
Gerry
You mileage obviously varies, as they say. My observations of using my 14mm on Xpro2 and Xt3 since my early days with Fuji is that the indication is unreliable when af-s is used. You can focus several times on the same point in a scence and get a different reading each time, but I am satisfied that the actual focus point is the same, within minor and acceptable variation. Same thing happens with my 18-55 when on 18mm. 23mm f/2 I have behaves much more consistently.
Gerry
Nov 28, 2025 at 04:06 AM