milandro

So according to your rumor we will be nearing the release date of the X-E2 4.0 firmware update, any news?

Yes, you are a well know “ tester” on the internet and very good tests they are too. I remember your comments on the kipon adapter. You said, back then, that you were going to show us some of the results of you using them, but that you were very busy. I have bought it and gained some experience myself with it. http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/866-kipon-tilt-adapter-would-you-please-show-some-of-your-images/ Your test shows that on a aps-c you are likely to see an improved image quality by using a metabone sped booster as opposed to a simple non optical adapter. Unfortunately you haven’t made a comparative test with different focal reducers. I am not interested in adapters with electrical contacts since the lenses that I would be using would be mainly M42 without electrical contacts.

self deleted

Indeed the 18-135 is weather sealed but the X-E2 isn’t, but I suppose it is indeed the ideal lens for this kind of thing.

because, for all you know, it might be as good as and cost less than half? How do you know it isn’t? If it were that simple of anything you should always buy, without comparison, the most expensive thing and assume that because they ask more money that has to me that it is automatically better. It might very well be so, but not because it has to be so based on price. My purpose in starting this thread was to assess the quality of each on merit, not basing this on a price which might or might not reflect a better image quality.

I would suggest, next time that you have a chance, to try and seriously consider them, in particular the Samyang production. I now own the 8mm fish eye and the 12mm and I think they are excellent lenses.

Well, we obviously disagree and have different experiences. I can only say that I have had both lenses and in my experience, I did the right thing by selling the 10-24 and buying the 12mm. I’ve never considered the 16mm for me to buy.

yes, my 3rd link shows one

Yes! Call me, Johan, when you are around this parts! .

the X-T1 and 10 are certainly improvements

your requirements are really basic. One small camera body with one small lens attached. Frankly speaking I wonder if you really need a bag altogether. Filters and batteries easily fit in the pockets outside or zipped compartment inside which almost any messenger bag will offer you. The size of the insert certainly would be determined by the size of the messenger which is going to contain it all. I really think that the choice, for you is literally endless. I would simply consider the possibility that you would buy at some stage at least another lens ( maybe my favorite cheap zoom the 50-230mm? ) in order not to have to buy soon another insert. You can go from cheap to very expensive the sky is the limit http://www.aliexpress.com/wholesale?catId=0&initiative_id=SB_20151108075757&origin=y&SearchText=camera+bag+insert https://www.onabags.com/store/small-goods/the-roma.html http://www.natcam.com/products/tenba-byob-7-camera-insert-gry

I am thinking of finding a new solution for the 18-55mm and was wandering if one of these would work at 18mm too

it really looks very nice on the X-E2! As I said it really reminds me of the Werra look.

Wouldn’t know why the EVF should dive you problems causing you headaches, other than it is not a “ still” picture but like any video it is a sequence of images. I have had a X-E1 and its EVF was adequate but the moment I put my eye onto the X-T1 I said: “ Wow!” and decided then and there that I was going to get a X-T1 if I had the chance. Few weeks after the X-E1 had a problem and this lead to me switching to the X-T1.

No night shots. Sorry.

Oh I am sure that you can! My clarinet playing sucks big time, so you probably do beat me, and my saxophone playing is just a bit better, I am a balladeer by choice and necessity. I am also a careful and slow shooter. Meditative I’d say! I’ve never used, if not by accident, continuous shooting ( and I truly hate going through countless versions of the same shot!) . That’s why I can live with 3 batteries ONLY and never have used them all on a whole day shooting. But that’s me, I’m slow. All tests show that frame accuracy with the OVF is an oxymoron

I am sorry for you

you change it in the image software of your computer. If it really bothers you you can make this an predefined action, the camera doesn’t allow you to change it.

really? I thought it was “ not really... but it looks so cool" Sent from my computer ( you don’t need to know the brand) at home

you can put it to the lowest of volume and you would hear very little, indeed the best is electronic shutter. Frankly speaking adding extra functions to cater for this special needs would make the camera even more complex than it already is making it less user friendly.

ok, I am impressed by the loss of luminosity at the edges. I have the same lens and have tested with a brick wall but haven’t noticed the loss of light.

this is with no lens, right?

the 10mm samyang ( or any other brandname it is sold under) is huge it has a much worse performance ( results at edges are very poor) than the 12mm.

I disagree, the 12mm has almost indistinguishable image quality compared to the 10-24 at the same or wider setting and a lot more than what this lens has to give at 24mm. I don’t exactly understand what the advantage is (other than the bokeh or selective focussing ) in shooting at 4 or 1.2. Unless we are shooting in absolute dark conditions ( where, I agree, noise will appear earlier on the f4 than on the 1.2, and past some point of darkness you won’t see anything anyway), the image which you look at is an amplified picture in the EVF which will look exactly the same ( because the EVF makes the compensation) in both cases. This is not what you have with a camera with a mirror where the image in the viewfinder will look as bright as the lens at maximum aperture allow it to be therefore there would be a difference between a f4 lens and a f 1.2 , but on mirrorless cameras that’s what you have. A electronically compensated image in the EVF. They appear, unless observed in VERY subdued light, exactly the same at f 4 and at 1.2 ( in terms of brightness). The majority of owners all agree they use it 90% at its widest only and those 2 mm are easy to compensate by moving your buttocks, in perspective terms I would like to see anyone telling then the pictures apart. Since I’ve sold the lens to a friend of mine one of these days I might shoot the same picture with both lenses to compare.

The X Pro 1 and the X 100 (S-T) have an optical viewfinder which in the case of the X Pro 1 is also usable with interchangeable lenses but won’t work for lenses that are too long or too short that the viewfinder can actually work with. Leicas had the same problem and for longer of shorter lenses you needed some different way to look through. The X pro 1 has the EVF for that. All these cameras have an option to use their electronic viewfinder which is activated by a lever at the front. Once it is on you use these cameras as a camera with an electronic viewfinder. The X-Pro-1 seems to have some OVF problems with some lenses such as the 90mm but it might be only a firmware problem. The OVF, which you admit you hardly ever use, is, apparently, something that aficionados use while shooting street photography leaving one eye open looking at more field than the one in the frame, and the other eye on the OVF to look at the content of frame. I can’t do that. I have used cameras with an OVF in the past Leica CL and Konica Hexar, but I always preferred the “ reflex” at the time and now the EVF. I actually prefer the aesthetic of the cameras without the hump on the top ( X-E1 or 2 ) but the quality of the EVF of the X-T1 ( and the X-T10) was what sold this design to me.