vkalia

You do realize that this forum doesnt exist to do your work for you, and that you arent owed anything by other members here, right?
 
So you have a problem with the camera.   What do you want from us - sympathy?  A hug?   A boycott of Fuji?

You do realize that this forum doesnt exist to do your work for you, and that you arent owed anything by other members here, right?
 
So you have a problem with the camera.   What do you want from us - sympathy?  A hug?   A boycott of Fuji?

You do realize that this forum doesnt exist to do your work for you, and that you arent owed anything by other members here, right?
 
So you have a problem with the camera.   What do you want from us - sympathy?  A hug?   A boycott of Fuji?

You do realize that this forum doesnt exist to do your work for you, and that you arent owed anything by other members here, right?
 
So you have a problem with the camera.   What do you want from us - sympathy?  A hug?   A boycott of Fuji?

You do realize that this forum doesnt exist to do your work for you, and that you arent owed anything by other members here, right?
 
So you have a problem with the camera.   What do you want from us - sympathy?  A hug?   A boycott of Fuji?

You do realize that this forum doesnt exist to do your work for you, and that you arent owed anything by other members here, right?
 
So you have a problem with the camera.   What do you want from us - sympathy?  A hug?   A boycott of Fuji?

With Canon, my general-photography travel kit used to have 3 lenses, all paired on a FF camera:
- 17-40/4
- 24-105/4 IS
- 70-200/4 IS
 
I have still retained my Canon gear and use Fuji as my travel kit.      Were i replacing my gear, I would have probably settled for comparable fast zooms from Fuji instead.  
 
As it turns out, I have settled on the following 3 lenses:  16/1.4, 35/1.4 &  23/1.4
  Quite honestly, i think the 50mm (in 35mm terms) is one of the most over-rated lenses in the history of photography.     It isnt wide enough to provide a backdrop to street shots, isnt close enough to be a good close-up lens:  it's just a weak compromise that is does neither properly.  
 
Now a 35mm equiv, OTOH... that, to me, is the first prime people should buy (I have deliberately gone with lenses outside my comfort zone for other reasons).     The 27mm pancake (40mm equiv) would be a good alternative for someone looking for something lighter/smaller instead.
 
With the "main lens" sorted, a wide angle is next - super-versatile and useful in oh-so-many-places.  The 24mm equiv (16/1.4) is a natural option for someone going the prime route:  the perfect wide-angle prime, IMO.      For someone who does a lot of landscape, interiors, street/crowded markets, etc., the 10-24/4 could be an alternative here as well.
 
For the third lens, there are a bunch of options.   A short tele would probably be the most useful, or a portrait lens - depending on what one shoots. I went with a 50mm equiv as a way to force myself to play with a lens i am not comfortable with, but i'd much rather have preferred the 55-140 zoom.  
 
For my shooting, an 85mm equiv is useless (I used to own one for Canon and sold it after a few years, having taken <10 shots with it), but apparently a lot of people swear by that as their 3rd lens in a prime-only kit.

Personally, I see the Fuji as a photographer's tool - not a videographer's.   There are plenty of "do everything" cameras out there - and Fuji, right from the start with the X100, has gone a different route.    I just finally jumped into the Fuji world with a XT1, 16/1.4 and 35/1.4, and a large part of the attraction for me was the form factor of the camera:   everything manual and via dials;  i finally have a smaller camera (with emphasis on *camera*, not electronic-box-that-can-take-photos).
 
That is not to say the requirements of those who want video arent valid - it is just that *this* is not the appropriate tool for those needs.   Complaining about lack of 4k video on a Fuji strikes me as akin to complaining that a 2-door sports car cannot carry a lot of luggage:  that's not its forte.    
  Of  course, if Fuji can fit it in, why not?  No harm done.
 
(My first post here, too.   Hi everyone)

This from a quick -through -window shot of a cafè in Edinburgh. It's a cat and or coffee cafè at the bottom of the Grassmarket.

Street Opera
 

Amsterdam, Fuji XT-1, 35mm f/1.4

II wouldn't say that. I'd say the title is very unfortunate, not because I am shocked but because I firmly believe a phtograph's interpretation should be up to the viewer, it's not the role of the photographer to tell people how they should interpret it. Something like Street Name - Year would be much better imo. I don't like titles that are oriented because they seem to imply the viewer is not intelligent enough to make a link on his own about what's happening, so he needs the help of the pohotgrapher to explain him what it's about.
 
Now if one discards the title, he can imagine anything. Would it be called "dreaming about fine lingerie" people would react differently. I know a man from poland who would find this woman a bit underweight. It's all a matter of personal perception and interpretation.
 
I would argue that it's really a shame that some people think one should not photograph fat people because it's disrepectful, or children because it's creepy.
 
If the viewer has issues in his head and thinks immediatly about sex when seing children, or about morbidity when seing overweight people it is entirely HIS problem, not the photographer's and certainly not mine. I don't mind my children being photographed because they are part of an interresting scene or just because they are beautiful.
 
Why could only beautiful slim women, flowers, sunsets and men in suits be photographed? How is that any more sane and democratic than photographing everyone, the homeless included?
 
How is photographing the ass of a beautiful woman next to the rear of a race car and call it "nice bottoms" less exploitative than to photograph a not-so-slim one next to a scrawny mannequin and call it "slender dreams"? It is not. It's all about perception and street photography is often about juxtapositions of things that work in the picture without necessarily having anything to do in real life (here we can't even be sure that the woman is looking at the mannequin due to the angle, that made the picture work in the first place)
 
The title is unfortunate but the picture does not discredit street photography which is exploiting life to make interresting pictures imo. Somehow nobody has risen a concern about the '"out of sync" picture capturing a woman that one could depict as being probably anorexic.

Fuji X-E2 - 14mm f/11
 

And yet there is something simple and beautiful about that focal length.