citral

Why?

This wouldn't need a new camera section. It's not an X100, nor an X-T, nor an X-E etc.

Sounds like FF to me. They are so confident in their glasses (rightly so) that they want more of the professional market I'm pretty sure.

Hi, sorry to bother you it's me, botherman. Could you please provide us with a sample of the 10-24@F/4 vs a prime in that range you own, both at F/4? Because here is a quick test with the 18-55 vs 35mm both at F/4, on a tripod, ois off, full manual, ooc jpegs : 35mm 18-55mm Now I'm really no pixel peeper that doesn't interrest me one bit, but one has to be fair, the foliage in the background doesn't resolve nearly approximately as good on the zoom. It's not close to be "almost on par". If you want, say, highly detailed scenes of buildings, or chunks of a town from far away I believe it matters, especially if light doesn't allow you to stop down to F/8 where it evens out. For landscapes it even matters more because foliage is something difficult to resolve. Is it globally close ? Yes. Can it be "good enough" for one ? Certainly, I'm one of those. I don't do big prints yet anyway. Would it be "not good enough" for some ? I'm convinced it can be. It depends what you do with it. The nervous bokeh of the zoom vs the creamy one of the prime especially is a big tradeoff for some situations and often annoys me because it's distracting.

That's the issue. Would you get it, next thing the newest camera has and you don't would make you jealous. It's a never ending story really.

Hi, my name is Christophe from France. As you may or may not have noticed it I like controversy and bold opinions so not everyone will like me on this or other forums. I own an x-e1, worked 6 months with the 18-55 before deciding I liked 35mm most and now own the 35mm f/1.4 as well, permanently mounted. I'm not interested in fw updates, better AF or CC for now, I'm only interested in becoming a better photographer. Same way as I've learned guitar by beginning with classical courses, then folk with a clean sound and now jazz, which are solid bases that allow me to play about everything I could want, I'm sceptic about getting too much gear / effects before mastering the bases because it distracts one too much from the goal (well my goal) which is to make good pictures, not just only OK pictures, even if I never quite reach it I prefer to have that as a goal than to find mediocrity good enough. 1 good picture in a month would be nice. I believe in reckless editing. If there is a picture I would have really, really liked to work but did not really make it -> thrash it. No cropping either. Cropping and zooming are enemies they make people lazy and cropping more than 3% is immediately noticeable for the trained eye. As everybody else I'm taking pictures of landscapes and flowers (I quite often hike for 2-3 days in mountains near my house, show me that weather-sealed x-e body Fuji!) but don't share them because I find it frankly boring for others. I'm not really looking for the "that's lovely" comments. I'm more after the Martin Parr humour that not everybody gets, being very cynical, but also love the Eggleston simplicity of photographing something just because the colours and light are beautiful, but I think it only makes sense as a project / book and not isolated. Now speaking about gear I've chosen Fuji over other stuff because I've never wanted to carry a DSLR ever, and for the low price of the awesome glass compared to other mirrorless systems. I'm not a fanboy but I do genuinely love what this company has delivered so far, allowing aspiring photographers like me to have a quality and lightweight camera at all time with them, and full manual controls if wanted/needed, and I'm thus very interested in the evolution of the system. See you on the forum, Christophe

Am gonna zone focus the hell out of that bird shot at 200mm yeahhhh

Yes it's difficult, it's a project not just random isolated pics you somehow like, the content matters more than exact sharp focus, I find it great. Very good way to progress, post more as it evolves

I don't know if the thread is opened for (constructive) critics, if not pardon me and remove this post, but the effect of using a tele is that the viewer is not absorbed into the scene, it looks a bit like a voyeur paparazzi shot. We can immediatly feel it was taken from far away. For street, try something between 18 and 35mm it really gives the feeling that one is in the middle of the scene

Is there a model of that kind of printer that would allow to send the pics via the mini-USB of the X-E1?

Ok let's put it in another way : you already have a 14mm. 16mm would not be _that_ different to really justify both. On the other hand, 14mm and 18mm are different enough to justify it. One is ultra-wide, the other one only wide, kind of usual wide. Wide enough to zone-focus very easily, not too extremely wide that you must be 30cm off the face of a stranger to shoot it. Now normally I'd say don't bother with the 18 and get the 18-55mm instead, the difference between f/2 and f/2.8 is really not that big when you add OIS to the equation BUT for street photography, if we mean the same thing, that is among other things shooting people fast because you see an interresting pattern / composition / light / behaviour / face / whatever without looking like a voyeur, the form factor of the 18mm helps a lot, plus you can hide your cam in a normal pocket to remain very discrete and just take it out and shoot quick when needed. If by "street photography" you mean something else like shooting, duh, random people randomly walking in random streets without a real reason and converting to B&W to look like it's "street photography" then whatever.

Yeah well I would'nt dream too much about electronic shutter as it's another way to segment the market with the X100 line, but who knows...

The main reasons to grab an X-T1 are the weather sealing, the iso dial if you use it, and that it looks more like a pro camera that would handle big lenses well, than the X-T10 that looks kind of cheap / toy like and probably feels out of balance with a 90mm, not even speaking about the big zooms. If you think you might want to upgrade at some point, you will, so rather go directly for the X-T1 honestly. If you don't need the weather sealing and will only use lenses like 14, 23 35 56, an X-T10 can be a good option.

It's extremely complicated to reverse-engineer a 40MB firmware with proprietary code running on proprietary hardware so better cross that out

It is true that X-PRO1 and X-E1 have different jpegs output than the X-E2 and X-T1. They are generally a bit warmer, and skin tones are a bit more pleasing, and don't get that nasty outrageous noise reduction at high iso. It only matters if you care about OOC jpegs and shoot portraits at high iso anyway. Someone reasonable would probably make an exception for high iso even on an X-PRO1 or X-E1 and use the raw to get a better output. In the end, for some, they are becoming classics and some will keep them just for that. Nothing wrong with that.

Those XC lenses can be a great choice for people who hike light and want to take landscapes with a great DOF and the occasional animal shot works too. If an accident happens, it's not the end of the world as they are dirt cheap. Otherwise (non-hiking stuff), and if you think you'll use it a lot, I'd say get the 18-55 and/or 55-200. It's going to last and has good resale value as well (here in EU at least, I'd have no issue selling my 18-55 for 300€), the aperture rings are great and those extra stops are never a bad thing. Neither are a bad choice optically really.

It sounds a bit like you are worried that people are not "intelligent" enough to take everything they read on Internet with a grain of salt. Of course you are right but it really doesn't matter in the end, if you are able to step back and get some perspective on things it's all that matters, no need to whiteknight and feel that truth must absolutely be reestablished (it's a lost fight, look at history books...)

It's so narrow it look to me like it's designed for japanese hands, I took my X-E1 in my hands today and thought about how it handles (I usually think about pictures so had to pay attention) and I wouldn't want it narrower, never ever, but then I have really long fingers à la Jimmy Hendrix.

Sounds like you have mastered forum psychology, thank you for enlighting us peasants with your super powers.

Yes we are on-topic.

Those "what if" are not a good way to think at all. What if the scene happens 1 meter from him? He'll be happy to have the 14mm. If it's at 30m then it's gone. All over the world, right now, millions of great scenes are happening and you're not there... Live with the fact that you will always miss a lot of shots, and that by zooming in to the scene you will end up with something you would have really, really liked to work but 99% of the time doesn't. Better concentrate on the few scenes that do work with what you have mounted. My vote gets to 14 + 18-55 and I would add a 35 if you like nice portraits of the people you meet, the 18-55 while excellent has a somewhat nervous bokeh, that is OK but not extremely pleasing and is rather limited (f/3.6 at 35mm)

Meh just embrace that for once a company delivers an uncompromised design made for photographers. One focale = best possible quality, small package, makes you a better photographer, why do you think it has such a huge success? By degrading quality, size and weight with a zoom you'll end up pleasing no one trying to please everyone. It would just be another fancy expensive toy with no real special quality that made it successful in the first place, it's dumb.

Try to envision your picture first, then set your focale accordingly, then move around. If you are trying to make a picture work by zooming around instead of using your feet it will never work that well

It depends. Maybe for YOU.

I could very well imagine a forum where people would debate endlessly about the merits of their vacuum cleaner that would very much look like a camera forum where people would only talk about their passion for their gear without even knowing how to use it / what to do with it. Or a Fender forum where people would talk about how they compare (woods, made in USA vs Mexico etc) and how they are so much better than Gibsons anyways without even knowing how to play a damn chord. You are wrong, cameras are just tools, that can help us achieve our vision, just like guitars can help us reach the sound we want. Everything else is futile. Pixels do not matter more than creation. Having a shutter speed dial helps me achieve my vision. Having Fuji labeled on it does not. Passionate about my camera, not caring about pictures, Jesus this is so wrong I didn't even know it could be possible. Better put it quick in a display cabinet.