merosen

Still, the X-T2 is a good camera, I just really don't like the fact that you need the extra battery grip to unlock the full potential of the camera, while on the other hand Olympus just released a new camera that is so impressive that makes every single other one from their company look like flying pieces of turds.
 
The X-T2 essentially feels like a slightly upgraded X-T1, I feel no need to buy it, it doesn't change much of from the X-T1 to value the extra money in it. Plus, the X-T1 still remain an excellent camera, it has a few weaknesses in faster moving subjects but ISO stuck at 6400 but that aside, it really is an enjoyable camera.

Ken Rockwell... the Donald Trump of the photography world...

OH MY GOODNESS I love this topic.  My two cents:  Don't throw it around, but use the darn thing.  If it gets dinged up, so what?  As I've mentioned in other posts throughout when I'm done with cameras they become paperweights. I still own my 1978 Minolta X-E7.  If you saw it, you would swear it doesn't work; but it does!
It has traveled from the northern slopes of Alaska, to the Florida tropics and everywhere in between!
 
I don't abuse gear, but I'll be damned if I'm going to baby it.  All this bullshit of WR and non-WR lenses to me is just that.  BS.  If a lens can't get wet, screw it -- move on.
As I've said before: Back in the day, there were no WR lenses.  We used what we got.  Period.
 
That's my story and I'm sticking to it! 

Heres a angle of view table  (Thanks to B&H)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/Angles-02z.jpg

Oh, my... why is it that every time this subject (and several similar ones) come up posters manage to turn a simple concept into something that appears to be baffling and complex.
 
First a 23mm lens is a 23mm lens is a 23mm lens. When you buy a 23mm lens from Fujifilm (on Canon or Nikon or Hasselblad or Olympus or whoever — yeah, some don't sell 23mm) it has a focal length that is 23mm. 
 
The angle of view of the image from a 23mm lens is different on every different format, not just cropped sensor cameras. A smaller sensor captures a smaller area of the image projected by a 23mm lens, so you get a narrower angle of view from this focal length on a small sensor camera. If you could put a 23mm lens on a medium format camera, with its much larger sensor of film, the projected image would extend over a larger area, and your photograph would capture a larger angle of view.
 
What photographers are usually trying to figure out is, more or less, "I like 35mm on my full frame or 35mm film camera. What focal length will give me the same angle of view on a Fujifilm camera?" Typically starting with a full frame sensor or 35mm camera as your starting point, you can figure this out using your camera's crop factor. It is easy.
 
1. If you like a 35mm lens on your full frame or 35mm film camera and you would like the same angle of view on your Fujifilm 1.5x cropped sensor system, just divide the full frame focal length (35mm) by the crop factor (1.5) to get 23mm. (35mm/1.5=23.33mm)
 
2. It works the other way, too. If you wonder how your 14mm Fujifilm sensor's angle of view compares to full frame cameras, you just multiply the crop sensor camera's focal length by the crop factor: 14mm x 1.5=21mm. Yes, your 14mm Fujinon lens gives you the same angle of view that you would get from a 21mm lens on full frame. 
 
I understand the desire to not have to do the (simple) calculation, but a few ideas. First, you only have to do it once when you select your lens for purchase. After that, it is what it is. Second, the math is actually pretty easy once you understand it and do it a few times. Third, there is a common way of describing this: "Effective focal length" or "focal length equivalent." You'll even see it on some vendors' websites. (From one I just looked up: "The "FUJINON XF35mmF2 R WR" offers a focal length equivalent to 53mm...")
 
Finally, if nothing else convinces you... accept that fact that this is how the world of photography refers to lenses. For decades, where referring to large format, medium format, 35mm, or whatever (each of which provides a different angle of view with a given focal length) we have simply referred to the actual focal length of the lens and photographers have learned (the relatively simple skills needed) to make sense of it.
 
Good luck!
 
Dan

The problem is not new to digital and was much of a bother with medium-format. At its smallest with 120 and 220 film, there was 4.5×6cm, and many 6×6 cameras. Next up was 6×7 which was common, 6×8 which was primarily the Fujifilm GX680's exclusive size, 6×9 was also very popular, my Brooks VeriWide 100 was 6×10, Linhof and Horseman made 6×12, Linhof and Fuji both had 6×17 cameras and someone made a 6×24! A normal lens on a 6×9 would be a very wide angle on a 6×17 and a telephoto on a 6×4.5. We carried printed charts with equivalency focal lengths. 

Heres a angle of view table  (Thanks to B&H)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/Angles-02z.jpg

In this thread there have been arguments for calling an x 23mm lens 35mm. There was also arguments för using angle of view rather than focal lenght and even t-stop instead of f-stop. The people asking for a change in lens naming all have good arguments from their point of view. I will however play the devil's advocate and try to explain why none of these changes would be good for the art of photography.

First "23mm should be called 35mm"
I know a lot of photographers that use multiple formats none of them really talk about numbers when specifying angle of view. We usually use "normal", "wide normal", "tele", "long tele", "portrait lens" and so on. 35mm, however is something of an oddball since the small frame 35mm has made a name for itself as a concept. If someone would ask me about what angle of view my 60mm ga645 i would actually say "35mm equivalent". I wouldnt mind that much if lenses were sold as "potrait"  and "long portrait" instead of 56 and 90mm and in that sense a "35mm equiv" name may be more appropriate than "street" but there are somany other things you can use these lenses for that i think it would be more missleading than guiding. 

Angle of view rahter than focal length
Angle of view is very important for lots of kinds of photography since it both defines perspective and how far away from the subject the shooter has to position himself. For someone that has not yet gotten used to the photography lingo or is doing his first film size switch it may be helpfull with angle of view naming. But it is actually very easy to learn to know what angle of view your lenses have regardless of film size, you get that information every time you look in the viewfinder and is sticks fast. In contrast to angle of view, focal length tells us something else too and that is the depth of field. Regardless of format a 210 lens has the same depth of field. Knowing your depth of field is at least as crucial to getting the picture to look the way you want as angle of view and it would be a lot harder to calculate that from angle of view.

T-stop rather than F-stop
T-stop may be interesting to the consumer or specialist that want to know that a lens will be usefull in certain low light conditions. But if one is more interested in what look a photographer can create with a certain lens, f-stop is a lot more interesting. 

To sum things up. If we want to argue about low light capabilities between camera/lens combos, compare lenses across systems to see which is "best" or just figure out how far away we have to stand from the subject to fit the same subject in the frame. Then changing what we call our lenses may be a good thing. However, if we want to talk about the qualities of a photo or how a picture was created or what lens one should use to make the picture look a certain way, things are a lot better as they are.

Btw, there is a lot of confusion going on about focal lengths and crop factors and depth of field. If you want to know that almost every explanation you can find on the internet is horrible simplifications, try to follow my long and confusing explanation here.

When you buy a 27mm lens from Fuji it is the focal length of 27mm, the focal length of a lens does not change based on the camera body or sensor it is placed in front of.
 
The focal length written on the outside of the lens is actually a measurement of the distance between the point of convergence inside the lens and the sensor or film inside your camera. Here is a diagram that illustrates this point.
 

 
So when Fuji or any other manufacturer labels a lens as 27mm they are telling you what that measurement is, that's all.

I've nothing against cheaper, slower WR lenses. Nothing at all.
 
But all the "magical" XF glass is fast and requires no digital correction (56, 35/1.4)
 
So whereas I see the need for affordable glass, I hope that Fuji don't stop making truly top line optics...

I have RAW files going back to 2001. Not only have the tools to process them improved but also the dullard behind my keyboard has gotten better at using the tools.
 
To me, throwing away the RAW and keeping the JPG/TIFF/whatever is like throwing away the negative and keeping the print.
 
But, still, I do not very often go back and reedit an image so maybe I'm just a RAW File Hoarder...
 
Mike

I do. Admittedly I don't have thirty thousand, but I do have files going back to 2008 that I routinely re-edit. The software that is available now is so much more capable than what was available at the time that I can get much better results now. My view is that developing technology will constantly improve the results I can get from raw files so I never delete any raw file of any image I am keeping. It doesn't mean that I'm going to reprocess every one, but for those I want to reprocess I always have the option.

a real macro   1:1 with focus limiter, magnification and DOF scales, and OIS

That's why they've stopped making bokeh monsters with 20+ aperture blades – why bother if most users shoot wide open anyway?…