[shoplink 36067 ebay]
[/shoplink]
The last ones sold quickly, but now Camerland is offering again a limited number of [shoplink 36067 ebay]XF 16mmF1.4 WR with a $100 rebate[/shoplink]
_ _ _
It’s just a boring Fujinon Glass… so get ready once again for the usual a long list of Pros and a very short Cons list also in the latest Admiringlight review. From the conclusions:
“Fuji keeps cranking out great lenses, and the 16mm f/1.4 is one of their finest. It brings the sharpness and low distortion of the 14mm f/2.8 and combines it with the great wide aperture performance of the 56mm f/1.2, while keeping almost all lens aberrations at a minimum. The lens is simply optically stellar. The only shooters who should pause a bit are those who are looking to use this lens for astrophotography, as it does show some notable coma. However, for almost all other shooting scenarios, it’s really hard to improve on this lens.”
French Review at k-pture (translation) / Review at thephoblographer / Samples at matthewhartphotography /
Beware: to avoid GAS, you should NOT read (and see) Rico’s XF90mm First Look. For the X-T10 First Look click here.
XF 16mm F1.4 WR
USA: BHphoto / AmazonUS / Adorama / EUROPE: WexUK / PCHstore
132 Responses
In time with couple of lenses i find all images of Fuji are FLAT. No matter of the lens 56 1.2, 23 1.4 or 50-140. I own all this lenses a period of time and after that i sell all the gear, along my X-T1 and X-E2. As i mention before, in other post or not, here or another websites, the big problem of FUJI is their sensor. In the future with new sensor maybe image will look more natural or with some 3D effect.
Colors and colors transition for Fuji are generally good to very good, even better with their Chrome mode, but that all. Final images looks flat in most of situations. Another positive aspect is the work in a range of 800-1600 ISO. Construction of some camera are generally good, X-T1 look a camera for people with small hands in my opinion.
That all!
PS: i return probably to this brand after couple of years. For the moment i don;t understand some reviewers who venerate so much this brand.
Cheers,
I hope Fuji’s weather seal is more reliable.
More reliable than what?
Here is my first 16-55 that has a fiber trapped behind rear element. Exchanged for a new one. The 2nd one has some small particles and I stop to care about. Had a brand new XF56 with metal flecks as well. Fuji is just a small brand in consumer cameras. I don’t overly trust them. These days even Nikon could have assembling issues in Japanese factories. I hope Fuji’s WR would withstand the testimony of time.
That’s to bad 🙁 . I have my 16-55 in warranty repair right now for another issue. QC seems to be a department that Fuji can improve upon.
I feel sorry for your hassle. I dont think they would do this. High standard QC would bring higher cost to them unless they scale up production. They currently only have about 5% market share in mirrorless camera. I won’t expect them to meet Sony’s standard.
Mine is being delivered today, I can hardly wait!
Its a great lens, shot a wedding on it at the weekend ( some shots on my blog ).
Admin thanks for your kindness in the moment where u don’t approve all the comments.
Write about the flat images what Fuji produce. I will post to different blogs my reviews and after that i quote this site for being hand in hand with Fuji. A bunch of guys who work only for commercial.
Fuji must admit 2 things:
1. Their images are flat in the right moment because the lack of the sensor power
(when they will lunch new products they will note their are the best but they are don’t)
2. They don’t have support for Adobe Converter Raw, and force users to use different kind of bulky software. Event the latest Lightroom don’t produce jpeg final results as good as they use in the camera algorithm.
Many cheers to you admin for the how u can hide the true and approve what u like in Fuji benefits here.
You must take the example from others!
You have to register your email and no approval is needed.
If you don’t register you have to wait.
Please consider that I try to have a life beyond FujiRumors… My day job at school, go out with my dog, drink a beer under the sun after work with friends, take photos… So it can happen that you have to wait hours before approval.
Stay positive my friend 😉
A very kind response, Patrick.
Wow. Coma is bad news for me. I expected all new fuji lenses to be optically perfect. On the other hand even at f/1.8 coma is much less pronounced so it’s not that big deal.
I believe the review said there isn’t much improvement even at f/2.8?
I always believe test shots, not the review. At 1.8 coma size is compared to earth rotation at 30s. That’s enough for me.
Yeah this was going to be my use for this lens. I was really hoping for low coma wide open. If it’s low enough at 1.8 then it’s still a stop faster vs the 14mm. But if it need 2.8…might as well get the 14mm. I think 30s is a little long Imo. For the 14 perhaps. I was usually at 24-26 seconds at 24mm. Anywho. I’m a tad bit disappointed. I think I just might go for the 14mm now.
Yes. The 14 is a great lens and it is so compact.
I totally agree. But sometimes there could be a situation when one has an important object that he can’t lit with stars in the background. In this case I would prefer to shoot at f/1.4 to get detais on the subject even if the stars would be distorted by coma.
At 2.8 it is almost gone, based on what I have seen.
On Fuji lens I used with (23/35/56), I think you should consider starting with f/2. Fuji is not for perfectionists.
Can’t agree here. 56 is good enough to be used at 1.2. I do this very often. I have no experience with 23 and 35 as I prefer x100s and TCL for these focal lengths
My standard is happen to be a little higher than it could deliver at 1.2. I always step down a bit.
It also depends on the shooting conditions. I’d say one stop IQ addition doesn’t worth noise addition from 3200 to 6400. I usually stop down not because of the IQ but the DOF.
If not because XF56 recently has a price drop, I’d say get a FF.
FF lens? For which system? And wich camera would you use it on?
Hmm, if I have to pick something at similar price level, then it will be A7 + batis 85. A used A7, even a new one, is quite cheap now. It also comes with a more straight forward workflow. Color rendering is something you could manually adjust in post-processing. But if you have to stick with APSC, Nikon D7100/7200 is quite good under low light.
Nikon 85/1.8 is great and is extremly cheap.
But a decent Nikon body is not always cheap. Plus, they are much bigger. Although I have to admit battery life is way longer.
That’s true. Every system has it’s own advantages and disadvantages. One has to figure out what he needs and get the most suitable system. I can’t give a short answer why I choose Fuji. It’s a complicated group of nuances that form overal priority of one system over others.
To me it’s simple. I don’t want to invest heavily on cameras now. So I picked something I like and will continue to use even after I obtain Nikon or perhaps Sony in the future. If Sony has a 24-70/2.8 below $1400, I would not buy X-T1.
Smary people should never invest heavily in cameras as bodies get only cheaper opposite to the lenses that sometimes only rise in price.
modern lens, I rarely see such examples. Vintages ones are not for me.
Lenses get more expensive in a decade and more. If the lens is morden it had no opportunity to get more expensive. But if you buy it now you would be probably granted in a decade.
10 years later we might be using liquid lens. Who knows.
This doesn’t mean current lenses will be way cheaper. The trick is to sell at it’s peak which is the moment something better is on the horison and you’ll be switching to it anyway.
Very few lenses get more expensive later on. Many Ai/S lenses that once cost quite a bit are now cheap as chips. These are excellent. Sought-after systems that go extinct may see lens prices hold steady, but even then, the chances are very, very slim.
As I said in the next message “The trick is to sell at it’s peak which is the moment something better is on the horizon and you’ll be switching to it anyway.”
And constant switching is a major drain on resources.
Good lenses renew very rarely. I wouldn’t call 10-15 years cycle as “constant switching”.
Plus, which is better is a question I will wait and see until reviews on Batis come out.
Guys, has anyone tested this for infrared ? Or compared it against the 16-55 ?
“YOUR” images are flat. It’s you, not the camera or the lenses,
Hate to break it to you, but if the images look “flat” its most likely down to the photographer. Are you seriously saying that all the images taken by fuji users look flat to you? Because I’ve seen some incredible stuff by people using this gear.
you shouldn’t bash others just because you can’t tell subtle differences
why dont you show us side to side comparison?
There are already too much samples around.
I truly believe you are silly in thoughts….really really silly by any modern standard
Go fight with him. Google Steve Huff, in case you don’t know him.
Why would anyone care what Steve Huff says?? Aside from him doing some work for Seal (the Leica link) all he shoots is the tree in his back yard and shots of the local bar to sell the next (newly announced) camera.
You must only use Medium Format… Hahahhaa
There are some good FF bodies. But they are all around $2k usd. A7, sadly, is not one of those.
I have the d800 and I’m very happy with it. also have the xt1 and i’m equally happy.
Does that make your xt1 trounce your d800 with better image quality? I’m not interested in objective observations in this discussion. What I often see is people settle down with fuji since it provides enough for lighter packages and fun.
Isn’t providing enough enough? Why would one need something that produces more than what one thinks is good enough for the job? I’ve seen photos taken with entry level dslrs (crop) that took my breath away. Also if I remember properly the Times cover from the Portland incident was taken with a X100s/T… They didn’t think it was flat or did they? And whoever looks at the photo will not be checking for 3D qualities. Just take out the gear you have, and if you make the most of it I guarantee you the quality of the gear will be more than good enough to express your vision of things.
I am not starting this conversation to discuss is enough being enough. I was starting this because apparently there were people looking at Fuji in a way I don’t agree with. Fuji, to me, has a characteristic flat color rendering and performs close to FF bodies. Unfortunately someone did not agree with that, which led to this conversation. I don’t care if anyone else loves Fuji or not. I care about the cold facts about this camera.
If u don’t like Fuji then piss off. What are you doing in a Fuji forum? Trolling? I don’t like Sony A7 cameras and I don’t go to Sony Rumours forum writing they’re flat or crap. Who cares? No one here cares about your Fuji hate! Put that in your brain!! Once for all. If you hate Fuji cameras build a website or a blog and there you will be a King to all haters… This is a forum for people that like Fuji products. And you say they’re not good but there are thousands that love it for very clear reasons to me. The photos have a special look to them and that’s what people like.
And the cold facts about Fuji cameras: non flat photos, special look to them, great colors, good high ISO, great size and weight, really fun to use and not a burden to carry around like my Nikon FF GEAR….
Sadly I like my Fuji. But it does not change that I think it is flat. This is the difference between you and me. Prior to good or bad, likes and dislike, this is something I decided to pick up. I won’t be emotional just because others say it is flat or whatever. I am far less sensitive than that.
And, if you could, please take a snapshot to prove my hate of Fuji. I don’t think I had ever typed that out.
Sorry, if you say you like your Fuji and you bought it even thinking it delivers flat images then you either very rich or a fool!
Like an example I gave earlier. My friend likes super sweet deserts while I like something just a little sweeter than non-sweet. Any of us nuts?
PS. I have both Sony and Fuji. I like both. And unfortunately Sony users I know criticize Sony as much as they use them.
There are so many cameras available that it is impossible to buy something you won’t enjoy. I criticize Nikon for being a bunch of retrograde arrogant imbeciles, I praise Fuji because they are STILL humble and clever enough to listen to the wishes of the buyers. Nikon has shit lenses that I will never buy but also has excellent lenses and cameras that I bought. The same with Fuji. I only buy stuff which I like the end result. You bought a camera that you don’t like the end result!!?? That’s the problem!! If you see flat in the Fuji images why the hell did you spend money on it? Charity??
Did I mention why I buy Fuji? I think you are trying to impose your sense of value on me. I only said it is flat, not saying it is bad. You see the problem now?
You said flat is bad. And it is. You bought a camera that in your opinion delivers flat images… Unless you like flat fuji pics which renders again all your flatness posts useless and pointless. Buy a D810. If you see flat in that too then you really need to check your eyes…
I did not say flat is bad. If you think you read that, please post snapshot.
Sorry, Robert was the smartass that said Fuji had flat images… My mixup.
I am happy you worked that out. However, specs is merely specs. I look at them as a characteristic, distinguishable feature of a camera. People still buy Canon these days although DxO test results really sucks. Whether it is good or bad to one is very subjective.
Please post a snapshot to prove I ever said “flat is bad”.
Like I don’t care if you love Fuji or not, I don’t normally comment on that or try to figure out what attracts you. Unless someone claims it beats today’s FF bodies excluding Canon.
Those who shoot black and white with Fuji must be the dumbest people if people only buy Fuji for rich color.
Rich colors is not the only thing Fuji has…
Flat is a result of comparison. You did not directly answer one question earlier. Does your X-T1 beat D800 in image quality? I would like to make it more specific. Is your X-T1 producing 3d looking images as your D800? This is the core of discussion.
I don’t understand where you guys get off on this ‘Fuji’s are flat in low light’ kick. Seriously, do you all subscribe to Steve Huff or something?? I have owned an X-Pro1 since it was first released and there is nothing flat about the images. Here are (3) low light shots…one of them is a 12 second exposure:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/60455482@N00/9151096331/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/60455482@N00/14142615184/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/60455482@N00/17089781184/
However, let me make this clear. To me Fuji is overall good and great in some places. I give it 8.5/10. But excellent (>9) and superb (>9.5), is not how I would rate Fuji so far. I do admit I am demanding. But hey, I am purchasing a “serious” camera with serious money. Anything wrong if I look at it seriously?
When talking about images being flat, people are talking about color transition, how vivid it looks and microcontrast. Here are ones I took with Sony A77 in the past. I only changed exposure level. Both are captured with camera handheld.
When talking about images being flat, I think about lack of contrast. Image contrast is dependent on the settings of the camera and PP, the image sensor dynamic range capabilities, the lens used and (!!!!) the scene lighting. You need to learn more about exposure and post processing and stop complaining about your gear. What I rather found to dislike about my x100s files was much rather a sometimes unrealistic color rendition in both raw and jpg files, and dark colors clipping really fast towards black.
Your Bird picture is a good example. It is underexposed by around a stop and was shot during some rather dull lighting. I don’t really understand what you were expecting here with a different camera. A boring photo will always be boring no matter what gear you used.
Quoting steve huff doesn’t make things better. He is more a gadget reviewer and a mediocre photographer and as stated before, he isn’t even able to objectify what he is talking about but rather hides behind phrases like rich and hearty.
Ps: professionals are mostly shooting medium format for 4 main reasons: need for high resolution, leaf shutter lenses for flash work, camera movements in macro and architecture and last but not least for tethering.
Long comment. Let me keep this short. My point is,Fuji is flat, not being flat is bad.
? I don’t understand why this is worth mentioning as a feature at all? When shooting architecture professionally with my Nikon, I set the camera to -5 contrast in order to have a neutral histogram. When shooting unimportant stuff I set the camera so that it looks similar to the image I am trying to achieve. canon slrs have some more contrast applied to their files compared to nikons thus the canon sooc images look more pleasing to some people’s eyes. But at the end, if you know how to edit the images you won’t notice a difference. Same applies to the fujifilms which are far from perfect in my opinion too. If you know what you are doing you will get pleasant results.
I have not mentioned whether I am pleased or not. My glitch with people around here is down-rating anything but their Fuji gears. And being so sensitive and fragile. I hate people acting like this. That’s why I started the whole thing. You see my point now?
There is really a tendency for fanboyism and constant senseless comparisons like ”my 16mm 1.4 is half the weight of the nikon 24 1.4, blah blah”. Nevertheless, the statement that images from certain cameras are flat or not as sharp etc is useless since the tonal curves of images are the result of conscious decisions of the manufacturers and can be changed when editing the raw images.
Except for limitations brought by outdated sensors. We have disagreements in the choice of words. But you said what I was trying to express. Fuji’s flat tune curve is just a characteristics. It is not about being superior or inferior.
Fanboys… “X-T1 breaks the Full frame nonsense”.
I agree that the phenomenon Huff and you describe is a result of the tone curve the camera spits out. But this can be “fixed” (assuming someone doesn’t like it) in post. I wish Huff would make this clear rather than harping on and on about issues that really don’t matter in most serious photographer’s workflow.
Love him or hate him, Ming Thein has produced images with both the X-E2 and X-T1. And guess what?! They look exactly like the images he produces with the iPhone 6 and D810 (at web sizes and assuming equal depth of field of course). This is because he processes in a consistent style and obviously has gained the knowledge that allows him to this. In the end, I’m in the Fuji universe because I wanted access to lenses like the 14 and 35 and after a few months of experimentation in Lightroom I couldn’t be happier in it.
After all those months, Sony sill don’t have a sharp 21 equiv with no distortion and Canikon still don’t offer a mirrorless option that takes advantage of their lens catalogue.
@disqus_NaLmpe1Hr9:disqus @trentontalbot:disqus @andreaslerchl:disqus @Fujirumor:disqus Sorry Andreas didn’t realise you had already mentioned some of this.
If you find FE 16-35 to be useable… I never think Sony has a good plan going on. A7r has optimized sensor for better image quality near corner but A7 is left out (intentionally to create a gap). The new 35/1.4 on A7R very clearly demonstrated the best Sony could offer. Tech wise they are doing very well. But although Sony seems to have a bright future, it definitely has nothing to do the Sony gears people have today.
Distortion can be corrected easily, which is hardly a problem.
Adapting FF lens involves some other issue. If you wish to discuss.
Actually I shoot Fuji X-Pro1, and a Leica M240. I recently sold off all of my Canon gear. Point being, I don’t need to be a Fuji apologist I just don’t agree with your (wrong) assertion that Fuji files are flat.
In case you haven’t noticed, Canon has terrible specs in today’s standards.
Why do you think I sold my Canon gear??
Actually ‘specs’ were only a minor part of the equation.
BTW, I somehow thought Steve himself said “Fuji files are flat”.
Yes, please show us some examples to illustrate your point. And you really consider A7 images flat? Wow, you must have an amazing camera:)
I have both xt1 and a7. Played around with capture one on a professional monitor. Yes, i am serious about my words.
i REALLY LOVE SONY AND i LOVE MY SONY CAMERAS AND LENSES BUT i NEED A FUJI IN MY LIFE. I AM FORCED TO SHOOT VIDEO WHICH IS PROBABLY THE ONLY REASON I DON’T OWN A FUJI. THAT AND I CANT AFFORD BOTH.
AND YOU REALLY NEED TO FIND THE CAPSLOCK BUTTON ON YOUR KEYBOARD 1 😉
Yeah I know. I was too lazy to fix it so I just continued…..
Fuji does not have good sensors. Also, raw processing is a bit awkward. I also hope they eventually get better sensors.
While I am looking forward to a new sensor in the next generation of Fuji cameras (X-Pro 1 or X-T2), and I think they should provide their own bare-bones raw converter or the ability to convert the files to 16-bit TIFF using the in-camera converter, the sensor in the current cameras is perfectly fine. While these photos may not be great examples, here are some photos that I have taken with the X-Pro 1 – I don’t think they are that bad:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55594432@N03/17030214620/in/photostream/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55594432@N03/17106837642/in/dateposted/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55594432@N03/16687389681/in/dateposted/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55594432@N03/16319871659/in/dateposted/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55594432@N03/17519683864/in/dateposted/
Tiff is not very practical so far. I only hope they work out a better converter. So far i use capture one. Though it’s not the most easy one.
Here is one I took with Sony A77, which was replaced by X-T1. I had been lazy so I only changed exposure. I hope by comparing to the sunset you captured, they would tell something.
If you don’t keep a camera system for quite a while; you won’t learn to react with it as an organic and scone nature extension of yourself and you will continue to take cliche photos of sunsets.
The only glitches for me, Fuji offers the most capable APSC around.
Did I say any of my equipment was bad? I did a lot of research before paying. I don’t buy what I think is bad. I described it to be flat. This is a neutral description resulted from mere comparison without involving my individual opinion. You need to be more subjective and don’t over read other people’s comments, especially others you don’t know a thing about. This is basic manner.
Not to sound like I’m advertising for it (it’s free anyway), but I’ve found I’ve had the most satisfying raw processing results by using darktable, with 3-pass Markesteijn demosaicing, and tweaking the basecurve presets. I normally use a base curve with lowered contrast for native fuji-lenses (which are very contrasty), and the default for non-native fuji-lenses (like voightlanders, which are less contrasty). By changing base-curve presents you have much better control over how you want to use the raw data, far better than any experience I’ve had with light room. I think a lot of how flat/not-flat an image looks depends more on the lens and how the raw data is pushed rather than the actual sensor response with the modern equipment we have nowadays.
But yes, we’ve had a longer history with bayer sensors, so there’s more tools out there to get the best out of them than there are for x-trans (which I’ve found at least more resistant to color noise than bayer), so it’s probably going to be a little awkward as long as Fuji’s the only one using it.
I wouldn’t say the sensor isn’t “good” but the truth of it is that at least the X-Pro 1 one only goes up to about ISO 3000, (ISO 6400 is just pushed automatically in post), which is a whole lot less than most comparable sensors today? Hopefully the next x-trans iteration has a more versatile sensor behind the array.
First of all, Fuji buys some old stock from Sony and Sony just have betters ones now. Then, Fuji’s ISO is marked higher than other cameras. And at last, you could not beat physics, which means more light renders better results. Yes, this is not including my demands and requirements, which means I am simply relaying something I considered facts.
Is there anyway we could weigh contributor’s IQ before letting them upload rubbish?
Eysenck test as a registration captcha?
Do this guys images look flat to you?
http://billgekas.blogspot.de/2015/04/my-affair-with-fuji.html
Honestly any modern entry level dslr or decent mirrorless camera from the past 2 years is capable of incredible images that don’t look flat at all. Stop blaming the tools and learn to use them better. Really annoys me when people moan about modern sensors, they are incredible, and I’m not just talking about Fuji.
Did you check yourself at the mirror? Maybe you see all FLAT because you only have one eye! You’re clearly a hater or/and a terrible photographer… If you want 3D buy a 3D camera!! Or watch the pictures with those red and green 3 D glasses! Haha you’re a joke!
This is the guy you should fight with.
Apparently Steve Huff is in agreement with him.
Yeah, he also thinks he can talk to spirits: http://huffparanormal.com/ . Besides, he is specifically talking about OOC JPEG. In any case, there seem to be a awful lot of people that do like the Fuji look.
So here is an example. My friend loves super sweet deserts while I prefer them to a just a little sweeter than none. So shall I undergo a discussion with him to figure out how sweet desert should be? As Huff suggested, it is a Fuji feature. Like it or not, you can’t change what it is, flat is just flat. My passion to Fuji does not make me ignore its disadvantage. Those are things I already accepted before I pull the trigger.
Funny that you should actually make statement against your point. Finding an image flat is not a feature, but an opinion. Everyone can have those and everyone is always right 😉 . But in no-way can you claim it as fact. Steve Huff can’t even quantify the problem, calling it not “rich” or “hearty” or “organic”… whatever that means. Sure there are things to criticise on OOC JPEG’s (to much NR at high ISO for example), but naming ALL Fuji images flat is just ridiculous. Look at all those fantastic examples out there that prove the opposite! I bet you even made some of them 🙂
Well, I had this discussion with a professional photographer who mainly use medium format at work. He said I don’t even need to spend time thinking about this question when using an APSC since they are all somewhat flat. So the thing is, Fuji is flat and every other apsc and even some FF are. Why be so sensitive. At least I never typed out “being flat is bad”.
You must be living in one of these places that have legalized marijuana, I have no other explanation.
I lived in a world people knows how to compare things. Customers won’t pay you if you took your Fuji to work. However, Fuji must pay you very well to speak for them. Quite common. But it is even more common to see volunteering “advertisers” doing these for free.
You need to upgrade your tinfoil hat, as an aluminum doesn’t cut it anymore. Use an oxygen-free copper foil.
Opinions and opinions. Pointless fighting over this. I have no interest in your opinions after all. Unless you provide subjective reasons , end of conversation.
Sorry to hear that an undetermined third party pooped in your pants again.
Smart move by diverting the topic. Sadly that’s your limit I suppose.
Seriously? You’re quoting Steve Huff? No faster way of destroying what’s left of your credibility.
I would like to quote dxo most but sadly they don’t review Fuji. I always think Fuji worked out a deal with them.
First Steve Huff, now dxo mark…
A tool is a tool. It does not need passion to function.
And a fool is a fool 😉 believe what you want but don’t expect me to take dxo serious.
I am an engineer. I always think people who don’t know how to read test charts need more education. But I don’t press people on that.
Guy taking DXO as facts. ’nuff said.
How you use your tool has nothing to do with the nature of the tool. I put forward a discussion on performance and specs, while you think it is foolish to quote data. I wonder where you get your degree from.
Let me take reaction energy for an example. If you ever learned high school chemistry, you would recall that you could not calculate absolute heat stored in any molecules. But you could compare them against one another and see the difference. The same applies to DxO data. Alone it is not quite useful. But since they apply the same test scheme each time, results are quite comparable. Unless you accuse them of showing inconsistent or false data.
Yep, DXO is right since they apply the same faulty scheme every time. You’re totally right ^^
Why don’t you prove that, scientifically. I will be happy to be enlightened.
One can claim anything. I can also claim Fuji ask DXO not to test their products to avoid exposing bad results to public.
Maybe one day your cameras will be completely designed by artists who has no engineering background. You might like it. However it won’t be for me.
Even if he said something you think is crap, it does not mean everything comes out of him is crap. Prior to good or bad, flat is signature of Fuji’s Japanese style.
At least Huff is being somewhat objective here in admitting his comments only apply to JPEGs and it won’t make a difference in a finished print. I find some of his other statements infuriating such as those contained in his reviews of Leica gear. What the f*#k is “pop”? I think he should be forced to provide a custom dictionary to explain the meaning of the words he regularly uses in his reviews.
For what it’s worth, I switched from Sony to Fuji 18 months ago and I hate the Fuji JPEGs too. But I don’t shoot JPEG.
The only reason I planned to buy this lens was for astrophotography. Sh!t.
I guess you need to work on your postprocessing.