milandro

one more

the fuji files are incredibly forgiving even at 1600 ISO and you could also shoot without the tripod, if necessary

Long standing project begun with film

so KateR, now that you’re back will you tell us about this adapter?

it will be almost invisible

repetita iuvant

preferences, beliefs, likes and dislikes, don’t have much to do with science, generally. If you try to explain the first with the latter you produce intellectual questionable things, like the triangle of lens intentions.

aren’t we all

yep, but that’s the problem. I too have preferences that i cannot explain. There is not need to try to rationalize everything. One can simply say, I like it but I don’t know why.

the apple story attributed to Newton is certainly apocryphal. About beliefs. Despite the fact that he was the most important genius of his era ( and of later eras too at least until Einstein) next to this incredible intelligence newton spent most of his time and money in being an alchemist. Alchemy was not and still is no science but an idea simply based on a belief.

the problem has been existing for some users longer than 2 years and to date nothing has been done other other than fixing. generally for free, the camera. Despite owning the X-E2 ( which is a great camera in his own right) I prefer the X-T1 and, touchwood, until now, didn’t have to deal with this problem. Nobody knows why this happens, nobody knows why this happens to some cameras and not to all of them. Some people have reported this type of problem with other cameras too. Aki Asahi http://aki-asahi.com/store/ he couldn’t make an alternative skin for this camera because the camera , in his words, “ is not straight” I am not quite sure of what he means by that. Maybe this is the problem?

Frankly speaking and despite liking and using classic lenses myself, there is nothing in this article or in the “ lens intention triangle” that explains anything. It is just a way to say that something is better but it is like to say “ look, the bread I eat is the best in the world and here is a diagram to show you why”. We like things (or dislike them) like these, more often than not for imponderable and indescribable reasons. Is there a rational way to explain why you like your partner more than another person? Any attempt to rationalize things which belong to the realm of matters of taste has to be foolish unless you can bring it down to numbers. If not ( which is in most case what happens for matters of taste) than the only thing that might give you an indication is averaging results. In a track race it is easy to say who wins, you could , in principle have one judge only ( although they use more in reality) because the person who crosses the line first is the winner ( although you may need a photo-finish to establish that) but in a gymnastics competition you need a number of judges because , unless obvious faults, telling who wins from another will for sure, at some point, come down to a matter of taste. That’s what we have here. We can certainly measure lenses but this measurements won’t tell us which lens we would like more. In the end we all have to do with personal judgement. There is nothing new under the sun. Years ago a number of “ photoclubs”required my paid and professional services ( being a teacher and a professional photographer) to be a judge in their yearly “ competition”, they had 3 judges for this. Some of these people took very good pictures but all spent endless evenings discussing which ( you name it, lenses too) would be the best. Now those endless discussions have transferred themselves to the great photo-club in the sky, internet. Anyone can start a blog or anyone can open a tread and say this is the best and that’s that, because I say so. The reality is that no lens or camera or software make great pictures, people do, sometimes in spite of what they use for it. Take pictures and be happy and don’t bother about triangles, quadrangles, pentangles which explain the “ intentions' of a lens, use the lens and forget about its intentions.

most people don’t have any idea of what we are talking about, let alone know that they need it.

you are right! back to that kind of thing, must dash!

they are working on an invisible lens with f0.0, it will be weather resistant and offer a 1 yocto-meter depth of field. Don’t hold your breath though, it will take some time, for now a smaller 23mm f 2 will probably all they have to offer.

publish the picture that we are taking now because we discuss hot to take them?

maybe they have some insight on long term weather forecast?

maybe some sense will, sooner or later, prevail after all

the majority of pixel peepers never ever print anything they produce ( as everyone else) otherwise printing would be a much more profitable commercial activity that it is.

I suggest you look at my thread http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/2599-new-bokeh-monsters-or-classic-cheap-adapted-glass/?do=findComment&comment=24212 There I discuss achieving very good separation with minimal expense by the simple use of classic adapted lenses.

well, but if the results are fuzzy images like the one above I wonder whether it wouldn’t have been better to not use the converter ( by the way that converter might not be the best converter to be used on this lens since it was tailor made for a small number of Fuji lenses alone and not as a general purpose one) and crop or even use another lens altogether.

Thanks Jeremy @jlees for explaining this Aperture problem. I am already running the last version of the program and I find that using it in combination with the NIK ( now free) and some pixelmator gives me all I need. Bickering on whether this program or the other are the best for doing what we do is not my favorite occupation. I realize that being a commercial activity ( although some software is free of charge ) we are continuously bombarded with New! ”, “ Improved! ”, “ Updated!” products and that this is even more true of software as it is of hardware. Part of this due to the fact that one needs updating as technology grows. You buy a new camera with improved performance and you need a new software to extract all there is to extract from it. I am seriously thinking to take a break from all of this and step out the rat race. The camera, lenses and software that I use are contemporary or in the case of the adapted one older. They were made to work together at more or less the same time. The results of camera and software please me. Unless I have to, for some reason that I cannot foresee now, I will stick to this combination for a while. At the time of analog photography there were long discussions on how to process film and print. I got tired of those too. Most of us were depending on a good lab to process and print color positive or negative and on ourselves to develop and print B&W. I was a very good printer but I cannot say that I enjoyed printing as much as enjoyed taking pictures. Especially because I was into large format and archival printing, I spent long, long hours in a darkroom that I’d rather devoted to something else. But printing was a necessity and frankly speaking I wouldn’t trust my work in the hands of many and I couldn’t afford the services of those whom I would have trusted, so, “ do it yourself !!!!” was an imperative and contained many exclamation marks ! I really like the idea that one can use the jpegs straight off the camera. Unfortunately this is not always the case. The results are good but there are instances when things are not as they could have been. But I am hopeful. If there is one area where improvements can be made this is it. For the time being, I am sticking to my guns.

Yes, that’s why they are so much more expensive, someone sits and, carefully, defaces a camera which was previously, carefully, perfectly, built. Attention for details!

there are already two versions 56mm and this lens is not , at the moment object of any rumor, so, although everything might be in the Lap of the gods if FR hasn’t published a rumor nobody can have information, just guesses

the latter