kakaku: Fujifilm X100T vs X-T1 SD card write speed

Kakaku member, Barclay1234, published a fabulous report (in Japanese) detailing the write speed of the X100T with various SD cards. His methodology:

Camera settings: MF
Exposure settings: 1/1000 sec.
ISO 3200
drive: HI, LOW

Contemporaneously, the shutter button was tripped and a stopwatch was set. When the stopwatch read 15 seconds, Barclay1234 removed his finger from the shutter button. He then counted the number of files, including files that may have slipped in after the stop watch was tripped, that were recorded. (Barclay1234 admits that the numbers won't be 100% correct. They should be used as guidelines, only.)

If I understand correctly, the numbers are read like this:

HI (# recorded pre-slowdown) (# recorded post-slowdown) (total recorded)
LOW (# recorded pre-slowdown) (# recorded post-slowdown) (total recorded)

These are the results of his test:

X100T
SanDisk Extreme PRO SDXC UHS-2 64GB
HI　　7　　12　　19
LOW　　8　　12　　20

SanDisk Extreme PRO SDXC UHS-1 64GB
HI　　　7　　22　　29
LOW　　10　　20　　30

SanDisk Extreme PLUS SDXC UHS-1 64GB
HI　　　7　　18　　25
LOW　　10　　15　　25

#4　Lexar Professional 600x SDHC UHS-1 32GB
HI　　　7　　13　　20
LOW　　　8　　12　　20

XT-1
For reference: X-T1 & SanDisk Extreme PRO SDXC UHS-2 64GB
HI　　20　　28　　48
LOW　　46　　-　　46 

The X-T1 experienced no slowdown in the first 15 seconds. 46 JPEG+RAW files were recorded. After 60 JPEG+RAW files recorded (only 19 seconds after the shutter was tripped), slowdown was noted.

The cards used are the below:

1番　SanDisk Extreme PRO SDXC UHS-2 64GB
UHS-2 write speed　280MB/s(1867x)
UHS-2 read speed　250MB/s(1667x)
UHS-1 (no explanation)
Made in Japan

2番　SanDisk Extreme PRO SDXC UHS-1 64GB
read speed　95MB/s(633x)
write speed　90MB/s(600x)
Made in China

3番　SanDisk Extreme PLUS SDXC UHS-1 64GB
read speed　80MB/s(533x)
write speed　60MB/s(400x)
Made in China

4番　Lexar Professional 600x SDHC UHS-1 32GB
read speed　90MB/s(600x)
write speed　45MB/s
Made in Korea

Barclay1234's conclusion is this: When used in conjunction with the X100T, the UHS-2 Sandisk Extreme Pro returns roughly equal results to the Lexar Professional 600x card, and therefore, incongruent with its price. In contrast, the Sandisk UHS-2 card returns amazing results when used in conjunction with the X-T1. 

Thank you, Barclay1234.

Source: X100Tに最適なSDカード

Fuji X-T1 3.0 Firmware Update - A New Camera Or Just A Few Tweaks?

Here's one bloke that's not fully happy with Fujifilm, and for many of the reasons that I, too, am not. In fact, his words: 

“And I’m afraid this outpouring of gratitude for adding functionality to the camera when it should have been there in the first place just confirms to me that it may well be the time to conclude my relationship with Fuji. This update was seriously hyped, but aside from the electronic shutter, I’ve seen little to get enthusiastic about. It really isn’t a virtue that Fuji drip feed these ‘extras’ to us, because they shouldn’t be ‘extras’ at all. And they have been doing every time it with all their cameras, including the X100 which was their initial re-entry back into the serious camera world.”

While his conclusions are harsher than are mine, he's got his soul in the right place: Fujifilm should have released the X-T1 with most of the functionality that comes with fimware 3.0. And, they shouldn't have let a camera out of the gate with so many WTF? moments.

I, however, am not quite ready to give up on them.

Source: The Fuji X-T1 3.0 Firmware Update - A New Camera Or Just A Few Tweaks?

via Fujirumors

Phase One/Alpa A-Series modular MF camera prices

Announced at DPReview yesterday prove one thing: DPReview readers do not 'get' professional photography that shoots the boundaries of wedding and portrait business. Technical cameras have always been expensive. Even Japanese clones from Horseman typically start at around 3.000$. 

My Horseman uses plastic teeth, has brakes placed too closely to focus gears, wobbles, and still it costs 3.000$. Then add the film/sensor and lenses. At a minimum, a full technical camera will cost 20.000$, and that with last-generation technology. It has always been the case.

The Phase One modular backs/ALPA camera bodies/Rodenstock lens systems start at 47.000$ USD. Each part can be replaced, upgraded, or melded into a different whole. Modular cameras are LEGO pieces, not plastic Kinder Surprise statues.

DPReview readers don't know this. They think the world of cameras is and always has been composed of body/sensor/film combinations that cannot be removed one from the other. The invariable, and trollish horning in rampant at DPReview is by users mentioning that you can get a Pentax 645z for 8500$. 

Yes, you can. And it probably is a great dSLR. If you can use a dSLR or other flanged camera for your work, great. But that doesn't meant that a dSLR works for everyone. It doesn't for me.

Phase One build cameras not for the elite, but for the photographer that needs modularity rather than the cookie-cutter shoe-horning of customers. They are priced, like every self-respecting product, not to apparent performance standards, but to utility, to build quality, to precision standards that neither Pentax nor its user base understand.

Again, I don't understand why any website with such a broad user base - a base composed of professionals that know a thing or two, as well as lovers of kitsch - would continue to allow user comments. 

Source: Phase One and Alpa release official details and pricing of A-Series medium format cameras

(jingle jingle) selfies killed the digital cam

To enthusiasts, the selfie is a sign of decline, of self-indulgence. Digital camera sales are in decline. They have been for 5 years, the peak occurring between 2009 and 2011. And just what killed those sales? The smartphone. 

That despite Nikon giving us the D5000 with a selfie-friendly swivel screen. That despite mirrorless cameras being lighter and smaller, and easier to ratchet into selfie position. Thumb on the trigger! Say Cheese! That despite smartphone-controlled remote releases, a rainbow of cute (dare I say, self-indulgent) colours. That despite myriad attempts by camera makers to tap into the self market.

Enthusiasts could be right: the selfie may be the camera world's anti-Christ. Or, it may be the next logical step in the evolution of 'me'. The first artist-AWOL family portrait was invented with the invention of the camera. Paint brushes and chalk replaced the chisel, which in their turn, replaced the smudge of blood-and-shit on the wall. 

Handprints and impressionist splotch is no match for the mirror. We want us. We want it now. And we always have.

The smartphone has replaced the stranger-in-your-American-dream taking your Christmas family portrait. It has replaced the stranger-snapping-you-in-front-of-Niagara. The pole-mounted smartphone, the GoPro, and the glasshole wink more than make up for someone else's fingerprints on your life. 

And today, one resource in endless supply, made up by smiles, winks, duck-pursed lips: our face, is really all we care to see. It has always been so. The artist painted canvas, spackled cave, printed to paper in order to be remembered. The first self-portrait came hand in hand with the mirror.

We haven't' changed. Selfie culture didn't evolve, it was made radically simple by a modern piece of technology. Since the dawn of self-awareness, humanity has groaned for for the smartphone and the internet. Camera makers never understood this. They thought we wanted to be artists. They thought we wanted to be warriors. They thought we wanted their throwaway shit. 

They were wrong. 

We wanted us, in 4:3, or 3:2, or square, on film, or in a Twitter feed, faux-retro effects and all. And thanks to technology, we no longer need a dedicated camera to do it. Phones take pictures that hold up under great scrutiny even at respectable print sizes. 

One day, our kids will seethe at a new technology. The smartphone, the foundational smartphone will be supplanted by the Mario-Kart flying selfie cam, or home-cloned Zelda pixies snapping away at us, typing our thoughts, placing orders for more house-building foam. 

And camera makers will still be sending faxes, trying to figure out how non-camera makers ran away with the us.

The Economics Problem (of mirrorless cameras)

Another salient essay from Thom Hogan about the non-growth of the mirrorless market when looked at from outside the market for interchangeable lens cameras. 

“Back when I started this site three years ago, I thought that mirrorless would grow faster than it has. In one way it has: there are more products and more players stuffed into the mirrorless market then I thought it could support, even with strong growth. But right now the growth isn’t really there. Mirrorless makers that are growing are stealing share from someone else. ”

Thom is more of a level-headed gear guy than I am. I'm the guy looking for soul and a long-lasting reason to invest in a single mount. So far, I see none. Even Fujifilm's X mount, as sexy as it may appear on the outside, doesn't harbour the soul of an analogue camera. So far, it is just a pretty face.

Not that either soul (or face) is necessary for success. But the missing pieces that brought Japanese cameras into dominance in the 20th century: price/performance, reliability, and mass market dominance, aren't there on the mirrorless side. Those pieces are being picked up by the smartphone market. 

Which begs the question: for whom is the current mirrorless camera designed?

Source: The Economics Problem

Speaking of X100s: iPhone 6 vs. Regular Camera

Charlie Sorrel puts up a good one for the camera in the iPhone 6. The regular camera he uses? The Fujifilm X100S. Most amazingly, iPhone 6 jpegs hold up very well to post-processing.

“The JPGs from both cameras take this abuse rather well. Even zoomed in to 100%, and with the red and orange sliders slammed all the way over to the right, there are no troublesome artifacts.”

The entire article is worth a read. 

Source: iPhone 6 vs. Regular Camera … Fight!