Capture One 9.1.1 now supports the Fuji X-Pro2, but no lossless compression support for now. Download links here. Release Note here.

Via Fuji-X-Forum

Gariz released the half case for the Fujifilm X70. You can find them [shoplink 44316 ebay]at your eBay here[/shoplink].

FR-reader Alex told me that Really Right Stuff ArcaSwiss L-Plate for Fujifilm X-Pro2 has been shipped. “It is really nice with full access to all doors.” Check it out at reallyrightstuff.

A7rII + Zeiss 85mmF1.8 Batis Vs. Nikon D810 + the 85mmF1.8 Vs. Fuji X-Pro2 +XF56mmF1.2

_ _ _

There is an article at Petapixel, that is creating quite a buzz. Many FR-reader dropped me a link to it. In short: Sony’s Full Frame Mirrorless is a Mistake (and some are afraid that Fujifilm will Make The Same Mistake one day. Here some reasons:

1. Compactness: Full Frame lenses are Big, so you lose the size advantage of mirrorless cameras. “In many cases, Sony FF mirrorless works out as being bigger than a comparable DSLR.” […] If compactness really were your priority, you would choose the Fuji 56mm f/1.2, which also allows you to shoot faster in low light.”
2. Weight: “The next answer you will hear is that a FF mirrorless body is still lighter and the height or width might be a bit less. However, that’s partly because Sony put such a miniscule battery in their FF mirrorless bodies that you end up having to carry multiple batteries, which negate any size advantage.”
3. In Body Image Stabilization: In this case they quote a Sigma CEO, who said: “…the diameter is very small and makes it difficult to design high quality FF lenses … it almost looks like E-mount was designed for APS-C more than FF“.
   You might remember how a Fuji Manager said here, that IBIS is not good for X-mount because “The diameter of our mount was designed for the image circle without IBIS. It means the amount of light at the corners is reduced when the sensor is shifted. We could correct it digitally, but we don’t want to do it: we don’t want to compromise our image quality.” So the conclusions they make at the petapixel article is that “if you want IBIS, you have to design the mount in advance with a wider diameter, so that it doesn’t compromise corner IQ as the sensor moves around. What you don’t do is take an APS-C mount (NEX mount), turn it into a FF mount, then forcibly retrofit IBIS onto a mount never designed to take it in the first place.”
4. Sony FF Mirrorless not good for ultra-wide angle: “Zeiss has admitted that the short flange distance of the FE mount makes it technically challenging to design ultra wide-angle lenses, because the short flange distance between the sensor and the rear element is an engineering challenge for ultra wide-angle lenses. At really short focal lengths, the light hits the corners at too steep an angle, which is exacerbated by IBIS when the sensor moves. It isn’t without reason that Sony have yet to come up with any high quality wide-angle zoom lenses for the FE mount.”

All in all it looks like APS-C (and Fujifilm) is the better way to go for the reviewer.

Before you start the discussion, you should read the response of SonyAlphaRumors. He highlights a few “errors”:

1. Size: It’s not the “mirrorless” aspect that makes Sony FF attractive. But mirrorless is necessary for most of these innovative features to exist.
2. Big lenses: The lenses are big because it’s high quality glass, for example the [shoplink 44295 ebay]new 85mm GM lens[/shoplink] is made for ultimate quality. […] Sartor, the author of the article, did not take into account that lenses are also designed for different image quality performances.
   “Let’s make a more fair comparison: Here is the Zeiss FE 35mmF2.8 Vs the XF18mmF2.0 (29mm f/3.0 FF equivalent) comparison by CameraSize (re-aligned on the LCD screen)”
   So SAR’s conclusion is that: “Owning a Sony A7 camera gives you an extreme flexibility: If small size is what matters you can use small APS-C or FF lenses on the very same E-mount. If extreme quality is what matters you can use the bigger FF GM lenses. Such a flexibility is yet second to none in the camera business
3. IBIS: SonyAlphaRumors says that Sartor doesn’t bring a real actual proof to support his thesis.

Check out the Full articles at SonyAlphaRumors and Petapixel… and then feel free to drop your own considerations in the comments.

the Instax Mini 70 – latest addition in Fuji’s Instax World Line-up

_ _ _

In the internal battel, Fuji X-digital Vs. Fuji Instax-Film, the latter wins hands down.

You might wonder why we should care about the success or not of Fuji’s Instax cameras. Well, easy: the terrific earnings Fujfilm makes with Instax are fueling the development costs of the X-series cameras! Without Instax, Fuji’s imaging division would hardly be profitable.

The Wall Street Journal published some numbers:

• 100.000 Instax Cameras sold in 2004
• 5 million expected instant-film camera units sold in 2015 (compared to the 1.4 million digital cameras expected to be sold in 2015)
• expected 6.4 million instant-film cameras sales in 2016
• 30% Instax sales in Asia, 30% sales in USA, 15% sales in Europe

No suprise that over the last few years, the OVERALL camera ranking at AmazonUS is dominated by Fujifilm Instax Products.

So, the name, Fujifilm is still justified.

I remind you how The New York Times said in 2013, that from 2011 (Fujifilm X100 launch) to 2013, Fujifilm sold 700,000 X-series cameras.

You can read the whole story about the very interesting rise of Instax at the Wall Street Journal.

The New York Times says: “700,000 X-series cameras sold”