citral

NEW 1.4x Teleconverter for XF50-140mmF2.8 R LM OIS WR, XF120mmF2.8 R Macro, XF100-400mm http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n150210.html No reason to think it will be usable with any other lens.

It is quite well framed and the colours and muted tones are pleasing to my eyes, where is that? I'd say europe but not sure where.

Don't worry, the earliest picture already showed WR written on it, there is absolutely no reason they would backpedal.

Oh, this doesn't upset me one bit. It was just a general reflexion and questionings I made at the wrong place, I plead guilty, sorry. I think your photo belongs to the "street photography open thread" you have probably misread me? I said it is, street photography. I don't know what to say about why you think I have a narrow definition for street photography either. For me, it is about documenting life. Even if everything looks absolutely boring and normal because it's just people walking in a street, it will be interesting in 40 years (look at pictures of the 70's it's really funny now how people were dressed, the haircuts, the colours of that era). I personally like when the "document" has something special to it, composition, expression, absurd situations, irony or everything together but nonetheless I don't discard anything as being not worth looking at. (I find most of my pictures not worth publishing, that doesn't mean it was meaningless to take them, nor do I think people should do the same. Bandwidth is basically free, if people want to saturate their audience with more of the same it doesn't affect me). Anyway, if you like an opinion on your picture, while I would not have done better, I think I would have thought afterwards that it has either too much, or not enough context. I like odd numbers so here we have only a man and a bank, I would have preferred either the whole frame filled with the man only, or a third element, be it a thrashbin or a pigeon. Or from further away, the silhouette of the man with a bigger picture of the place. Anyway I don't think I would have done better on the moment as it's not yet automatic to compose for me, it's always when I review that I think gosh, why did I include this ugly car in the picture or what made me think a picture of 2 people discussing is interesting, 2 and 4 are boring I like 1,3 or 5. Also I don't think 55mm is a good choice for this, I'd have used 23 or 35, and I might be mistaken but it looks cropped to me which looks further "zoomed in" and maybe almost too perfect on horizontal lines and the bottom left corner? Also it's kind of very tight in the top of the frame. This is a personal taste, no offense, and I might be wrong. But if I'm right it would be a pretty good example of why I think zooms are not a good thing, because people tend to zoom in instead of moving towards the subject to get the picture, and as they never have enough reach anyway, it ends up cropped and feels "unnatural" (been there, done that, it always ended up with an "almost" picture for me, but never a "YES! YES!" picture) I suppose you won't like my answer but since you asked ^^

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.

Just a hint for how it could be better : the top of the upper sign is cut, that is a bit distracting from the subject (to me). Since you're not in a rush to take this picture, here is something you can try that next time : wait for the right moment when nobody overlaps each other, nor are cut in half behind a sign (except if it's desirable for whatever reason). It will immediatly pops out that the photo was taken on purpose as a global composition, and not only for the sign itself. Just my 2 cents.

That is a good point you make. Still I'm not sure what people want exactly when they open a thread for a single picture. Is constructive criticism open? If yes it is worth opening that thread imo or it would clutter the open thread as you rightly pointed. If not and only "likes" and "nice picture" comments are welcome, it is my opinion it does not warrant its own thread. In the end the admins will decide, just thought I'd bring up that point.

After extensive testing these last days, I'm glad I ordered it. Once used to it, the lens chatter doesn't bother me one bit anymore, knowing I'll get a tack sharp image with beautiful creamy out-of-focus areas and pleasing contrast way makes up for it. I've taken it in church interiors as it's the project I'm working on at the moment, keeping my street shots aside to let them sit and review later on, and it does better than the 18-55mm with its OIS, if the dof is not needed. It's every bit as usable at F/1.8 as the 18-55mm at F/3.6 with OIS on. No blurred picture ever at 1/60s. Pictures have less of a digital feel to them, surely because the bokeh is not "nervous" like the 18-55 often does. Regarding AF it seems slow because of the chatter and external focusing but it's not that different in the end, and more than adequate for shooting people walking. Once it has locked it's more accurate than the 18-55mm. Now there are a lot of tips to work around it like setting a fixed speed and aperture and letting the camera on auto-iso, which diminishes the response time, and prefocusing on manual mode or smashing the shutter works really well too. Seing that in the new road map the f/2 is due for november, I'd advise not to wait if you think a prime of that focale length can improve your photography and/or image quality (in short : it will).

Well could have been framed better but yes it's tack sharp and the bokeh is gorgeous compared to the 18-55mm. OOC jpeg, sharp +1 with the 35mm f/1.4, one of the very first tests I made of the AF speed which is plenty adequate for slow moving stuff (read pedestrian moving speed) but needs prefocus for fast moving stuff (dog running, cyclists, cars etc.) which works as well but only results in about 70% of usable pictures for me

A thread here is a better place I believe to discuss this : Maybe the admins could make a sticky "Read me first" post about how people should first post in the right thread if it fits (like street photography open thread for this one, could be stickied as well so it's easy to find) ) and avoid starting a new subject every time they want to share a single image? If it was a project or collection, why not, but a single picture is not worth a new thread really it just clutters the section IMHO.

Maybe the admins could make a sticky "Read me first" post about how people should first post in the right thread if it fits (like street photography open thread for this one, could be stickied as well so it's easy to find) ) and avoid starting a new subject every time they want to share a single image? If it was a project or collection, why not, but a single picture is not worth a new thread really it just clutters the section IMHO.

Ah great, thanks Patrick! Tho I hope they release more than this (update of the 18 especially) because that's really not a whole lot for now.

I don't see why a very fast AF is critical on a wide angle, it's not like you are shooting fast moving things with it?

What makes you think people cannot get or make good use of what weather sealing, buffer size or physical width are?

The problem is not only that you are posting one after the other when the first one was already way too much. The problem is that you have not even read the original post. This is embarrassing. Now to stay on-topic : http://www.martinparr.com/2015/the-selfie-stick/

I don't see why Fuji would necessarily hide/prepare something special, maybe they are just looking at the sales numbers, decide that they have made that camera profitable and that not so many people are buying one anymore, and that it's time to drop the price to incite people that have cold feet spending over 1000€ for a fixed lens camera to make the jump, or for some X100/X100S users to upgrade. Also, I don't think it's the vast majority but quite a lot of people are not buying anything camera related at retail price, they wait for a drop or even for the model to be discontinued. When you already own a camera it's not like you can't make pictures and can't wait 6 months to upgrade at a reasonable cost.

To get people hung to the x-system. By puting a foot for dirt cheap in it (like I did with the X-E1) they can decide it's worth every penny and hang on, many DSLR users can decide to give it a go too, and keep it as a backup camera while they trade their heavy gear for a X-T1 once they see the DSLR remains on the shelf while the X-PRO1 is in their bag. It does not cost Fuji a lot because the X-PRO1 has long passed its profitability curve and all the resources that have been put into dev have long been paid for. Win-win.

It's pretty cool, however not really black & white, more like black & grey to me. Maybe push the white slider a bit?

Yes we got it, you look at walls thank you.

St Maurice - Mutzig by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr Ste Foy - Selestat by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr Time is running by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr

Wait wait wait That's my dog you thief!

Which I don't understand as I'd buy it for 250€ (max) but not the 300€ (minimum) it costs here. The only Fuji lens that is way overpriced. Heck I paid 370€ for the 35mm, they are in a completely different league...

Since the 35mm f/1.4 started at 600$ iirc, I'd say 499$ for the f/2 sounds about right, it can't be 349$ with weather sealing an the "it's all new" factor

I don't think it has been mentioned btw, but the 18-55 and 14mm share the same hood and filter size, if that matters for OP. Regarding weight / compactness 14 + 18-55 is a hard to beat combo for travelling light.

That's really great! I'm going for that too, thanks for the tip.