milandro

Thanks Aswald, I appreciate your effort to help me. I had the link to the product page already, which is where I got the picture. The reason why I am interested in this product is mainly because it has a stainless steel bayonet. I have had a generic aluminum adapter in the past and I think that the problems which I had at the time with particles on the sensor might have come from minute aluminum shavings coming the contact with the camera , stainless steel, bayonet. Aluminum is not as hard as steel so if you rub two surfaces against each other of which one is softer than the other there are good chances to produce some particles coming from the softest of the two. If this happens close to the sensor you have potential for a problem. This idea has been bothering me for a while. Not so long ago I bought a tilt adapter by Kipon, they are made for many cameras and it makes only sense to have the bayonet for each camera machined separately. In that case, the bayonet is Stainless steel too. I have used it with some trepidation but no ill effect came from it. Using such an adapter for anything other than tilted photography is impossible ( since they don’t have a “ click” which tells you the adapter is in its orthogonal position to the sensor). So, I set out to seek a “ normal” adapter which would also have a stainless steel bayonet. I didn’t even make it a matter of price, yet. Kipon, for example, does make a M42 to Fuji helicoid adapter but, beside costing a fortune, it is made of aluminum! The only one that I’ve found is this type by Fotodiox ( and a shift only adapter by Kipon but besides the cost, I don’t need a shift adapter !). Now the fotodiox says in their product description that it keeps the focus to infinity. BUT! Roxen (another “ brand”, there are several nameless of the same type of adapters on ebay...) sells an identical ( and cheaper) adapter but in THEIR product description they say it doesn’t keep focus to infinity. “.......Suitable for macro photography only, does not support focusing infinity....." So, that is why I wanted to know from a user whether it really kept focus at infinity or not!

probably, but then why do so many people ( over 60 views before there was any posts and only the original question) open a thread called in the title ( so no mystery enticing title there) “ Direct and specific experience with this Fotodiox Adapter, M42 Screw Mount Lens to Fujifilm X? I would have thought it would be clear that this was a request for specific information on that specific product. I am asking this because I am puzzled since I don’t normally read or even open threads where I have nothing to say.

I would have thought there would have been more people around these parts using “ legacy” lenses for macro purposes but it turns out that quite a few are just peeking in this thread ( I wonder what attracts them to open a thread which in the title says pretty much all there is to say but once they’ve done that not to add anything at all ) but may have nothing to say.

obviously not

You know, as they say” “ Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you “ ! But seriously, this shows that Fuji is getting increasingly aware of the problem and, although they might not (yet?) be prepared to publicly admit that there is a problem ( because THAT would open a can of worms), on a one to one base they are showing that they do what they conceivably can, to get you out of trouble, but all of this adds up and the more publicity this thing gets the easier it will be for anyone to have his problem solved. Well done! ( maybe you wan to edit out your name?)

good, He sees a new and prosperous market opening Incidentally, I think that the skins solve only one of the problems, not the doors.

interestingly enough the X-E1 and X-E2 seem, so far, to be immune from this problem. The shedding of the rubber cover in the X100, X100S, X-Pro-1, X100, X-E1, X-E2, X-A1, X-M1, opens the possibility for some of the owners, at least the ones who are also for the most part no longer protected by the guarantee if their camera is older than 3 years to change the “ skin” and buy the Aki-Asahi covers. http://www.aki-asahi.com/store/ It is better to do this if the camera is no longer under guarantee because applying your own “ skin” to a Fuji camera voids the factory guarantee. Unfortunately there is NO cover (yet?) made by Aki Asahi for X-T1.

For all I know, Fuji might be reading this forum, but, even if they do, any camera, from the first idea to the moment it comes to fruition, takes years to project and develop. IF the WR or underwater version of the X100R is in the pipeline already you might get to see it some time soon but it will be when they at Fuji see it fit to be released. But, realistically, if not, even if you paint them the most perfect picture of what you want (how about all the other things that other people want? There seems to be quite a few people wishing this that or the other) and start gathering signatures around the world to petition Fuji into this new project, it will take years before such a camera would be released. The world of commerce is not not a democracy where one can hold a referendum ( and even in democracies that doesn’t always work!). At most we vote with our wallets, you like it, you buy it, you don’t like it you don’t. I am afraid that we are not in the position to demand to be heard and counted. Be well, ad be patient. If they want to do something like this, it will be ONLY because they think that there is a market big enough to absorb the huge development costs , if so there will be such thing, if their marketing departmet ( who is much more in touch with the market reality than any of us will ever be) tells them that this is a minority market which they are not interested in covering, there won’t be any such camera no matter how hard you plead in its favor. In the meantime, if you want to shoot in the rain buy a rain cover, if you want to shoot underwater buy a underwater case. If you want something that isn’t there you might try to write them: “ Dear Mr. Fuji... I was wondering if I may interest you in a new idea... ... "

but that is not the case with other Fuji user’s whose cameras are molting their skin.

I understand.

well, even if you didn’t buy the camera in Bulgaria, for many brands there is an “ international “ guarantee valid at least one year this is, apparently, also the case with Fujifilm. “.The servicing of FUJIFILM optical products is provided under the conditions stipulated in the warranty information card. And are honored by any FUJIFILM distributor in the area other than that where you may have purchased your FUJIFILM optical products..." However, regardless of the guarantee issue, this is a manufacture defect since this is not your problem alone and cannot be trated as if it were something of your own doing or the natural aging process of a camera needing a part replacement. Of course I don’t think that you would consider entering a litigation for such a small amount of money but, as a matter of principle, you shouldn’t be responsible and pay for a defect. Do you have anything like a “ consumer’s rights ombudsman” ? You do seem to have some protection (at least on paper) http://www.ukecc-services.net/bgycr.cfm http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/127117/2/7%20-%20Ene.pdf

Since this is spreading like the plague, it cannot be considered of your own doing. This has to be a production fault and you shouldn’t pay for it. Alternatively. Have you seen this? ( it shows a home made solution) http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/1024-hacking-and-fixing-the-flimsy-door-on-the-x-t1/

If they would sell it at €500 ( which is about €200 less than the X-T10 costing €699 everywhere around here) they would sell many more than they are, costing as it does the same price as the X-T10 for a lesser performance. Here in the NL, the X-E2 is yes offered with a lens for a more convenient price than the body only option, but it is not tempting buyers as it still might, if it were sold in a combination where the body would cost you €300 or thereabouts. Mind you this could indeed mean that, come December, Fuji in their immense magnanimity, will provide the X-E2 of the same software as the X-T1 and X-T10. We just have no way to know now. All I know is that many X-E2 owners have succumbed to temptation and bought the X-T10. But who knows, maybe this will turn out to be an hasty conclusion.

perhaps it has escaped my attention or it was added later.

The reason why that I want direct and specific comments on the Fotodiox Adapter, M42 Screw Mount Lens to Fujifilm X is because I particularly like the fact that this adapter features a stainless steel bayonet as opposed to the majority of adapters which are made of aluminum. The reason why I am concerned about using an aluminum adapter is that I’ve had one before and it might have caused some little shavings of aluminum to come off the bayonet while rubbing against the camera receiver made of steel and ending on the sensor of my previous camera. This, I admit, has caused me some grief and concern. I would much prefer buying an adapter with a bayonet made of stainless steel. If any of you OWNS and or has USED this particular adapter ( so, if you haven’t, please, don’t advise me) could you please confirm, as Fotodiox affirms, that the lens keeps its infinity focus while offering extended macro capabilities?

I suppose you could use an adapter to adapt this Nikon bayonet to your fuji lens. You are obviously a very different person from me. The very idea of having a lens, exposed to bumping it into things and to the elements, hence with the capability to introduce dust inside my camera, sends cold shivers down my spine but I suppose it would take all sorts!

Did you buy the X-E2 after the X-T10 came out? They have always been and still are the exact same price as the X-T10 here in Holland and ( I was a few days ago in a major shop, so I’ve asked ) since the X-T10 has come on the market the don’t really sell X-E2’s anymore.

@Quincy, I personally don’t think there is anything wrong in having collected information from different sources on internet and having put it all together. I am very appreciative of the massive amount of work that that has represented and I definitely consider your article to be useful and providing much very good information. But, as you said yourself a few times in the edited version and the various commentaries, it is a compilation based for the most part ( and how could it have been any different?) on other people experiences. It contains a factual part which is very useful data, and it contains your comments. Some of your comments are a mere opinion, an opinion which is not always not based on direct experience of the thing that you are commenting on but on what you’ve read on line written for the most part by people whom you don’t know. The moment you venture into making your own comments based on something that you have only read from someone else, who might or might not have done the same thing that you did ( reporting someone else’s opinion) you are going astray from factual report and may, unknowingly, confuse someone who might be thinking that your comment is based on experience while it is reporting someone else’s internet wisdom, perhaps based on hearsay. There is no telling about the quality of information found on line. Thank you for your work, anyway. It is certainly a valuable resource.

Very ingenious, but is it still WR? Please don’t test it to answer the question !

If you have had this to all this many cameras you are the only common factor among all of them. Food for thought.

There are many legitimate uses for a IR camera, being artistic, technical or forensic, but there must be some other applications which I cannot envisage. I wonder which would be the "unethical photographic conduct” which Fuji used as a reason to restrict the sale of these camera, Fujifilm IS Pro (and probably the X-T1 IR), besides revealing which trees in a landscaper are real trees and which are devices to hide something ( these days many innocent telephone masts for example!) They would be also very useful to reveal which houses “ glow in the dark” with heat ( hiding for example illicit plantations).

a lens that is not yet being released?

this lens never ceases to amaze me, in fact, so much so that I’ve bought a second one! Well, it is like this... A friend of mine was looking to buy one and these are only at the €200 if you buy them as part of a kit or if you buy them secondhand, so, I sold him mine together with the 10-24mm ( another story) and bought it again as a part of a kit. Talk about enthusiasm! Now of course you test your new lenses but we have a particular spell of bad weather so I decided to test it indoors and with the curtains only partially open with the very low light of a heavily clouded Autumnal Dutch sky. I can’t tell you how many EV ( because I no longer have an exposure meter telling me that)that is but is is not a lot. I guessed that would dispel the rumors of those (who obviously never used this lens) that this lens wouldn’t be able to perform in low light. Set the ISO at 1600 and shot the TV guide . Shot at 230mm 1/60 OIS on freehand. Well, I don’t know about you but to me this is a very good performance! ( better even on the original than the rendition of the attachment here!)

unless you are shooting details of your timepieces which need being enlarged, in prints, to over 100cm on the longest side of the print, you can easily crop your shot and still not need any tube.

that is not what I expect too and I am beginning to worry, now more than ever before, that sooner or late my camera will follow suit but I was just reasoning of the particular wording that they have used and why they did that. Good luck!