citral

I'm not saying many will want. I'm saying some will want. Like somebody could imagine keeping forever their X-E1 + 35mm f/1.4 (not so long ago people kept their Leica 30 years you know) because it's a stunning combo image-quality wise with character and great ooc jpegs, but would also like a weather-sealed X-E + 35mm f/2 wr to get dirty. Same focale, not the same use. People are so narrow-minded these days, it seems like their priority is to cover everything from 10 to 400mm, and then what else will they need to make good pictures?

Well what is it that you're shooting? If it's cycling events in pouring rain, animals in the rain forest or pictures from a boat I'd say go for the 16-55. If it's for walking around and shooting still stuff in ok conditions grab the 18-55 and enjoy the OIS when you're inside buildings or generally handeld in low-light. For outside keep in mind that if you want to shoot sharp with plenty DOF you'll be around f/8 and thus the 2.8 doesn't matter at all, and they'll probably be extremely near in terms of quality well stopped down.

Because one that wants to work only or mostly with a 35, could like to keep that 1.4 for interiors, good weather but low light, or generally because that lens has a special character that is somewhat unique, and still want the F2 for when he goes to the beach, in the rain, a festival where beer might get thrown at it, you name it?

Some would have honestly loved to love Fuji for all the manual controls but could not cope with the AF slowness / low light hunting of an E-X1 in a wedding and thus got grumpy. Some feel they need to defend their Olympus choice because they just can't be wrong when so many are praising Fuji. Some hate the hipster image of the fuji cams (and tbh, half of the fuji blogs have half leather cases and starbuck ice-moccha-latte-blue-mountain pictures in them). Whatever, someone who owns a blog can write all the crap he wants in it, welcome to the internets.

Tamrac Apache 2 is a big disapointment, I'm sending it back. Didn't realise over 600g was _that_ heavy in relation to the size (It's really small). The strap is too short for me (I'm tall but not 2m either) and unpadded, would hurt quickly. It's very cubic, screams camera bag from the format. Well that was it whith looking for a decent camera bag, I'm ordering a normal (but water resistant) messenger bag and putting an insert, seriously how much padding and extra weight do those companies think people need? Are people routinely throwing themselves with their equipment against walls or something? I'm really sceptic over all those bags that overprotect the material against god knows what, yet are never really waterproof, and attract so much attention by their design and logos.

I agree with you that the focus by wire is terrible, but otherwise finding there are too many buttons on a X-E1 is really strange, if you have greasy goofy fingers it's your problem... If anything that's missing it's an iso dial, there you could have everyone happy, the "I only need iso/speed/aperture" crowd and the ones that also like to change to square format, or jpegs only, or use a timer from time to time. By the way I find what you do interresting even if you have ugly tastes in terms of processing. Why it's interresting is because it provokes a reaction and immediatly takes most of us out of our "comfort zone". Which is not the case with endless pages of "explore" full of flower macros, lovely sunsets and staged portraits. Carebears will always say don't shoot this or that, this is rude, I don't want to see the thrash of this world but they are just missing out on the whole picture that this world is about. Or maybe they are afraid because it reflects a part of themselves they don't want to see

This, and also because it's not a problem on this bodies to push a bit the iso to make up for it. Can even be desirable, for street photography, the grain at 1600 is really nice.

May I add that I found awesome, as many others, that Fuji made the Leica format modern and affordable, so we'll wait and see, on one hand they are releasing this 35 F/2 that is very much inspired from rangefinder lenses, on the other hand this X-T10, looks a bit like they have schizophrenia at the moment, testing the market response for sure.

Well if I ever wanted an SLR-like form (these X-T10 looks like a cheap russian camera to me, no troll intended) for a digital mirrorless camera that wouldn't be pocketable anymore, I'd certainly wait for the XT-2 to come out and grab an X-T1 at discount and get weather sealing, iso and metering dials. It's not like the X-E1 is limiting my photography so badly that I can't wait a year or more. Objectively on the X-E1, the screen is a tad too small, the EVF lags in the dark and the AF is on the thin border of being a tad too slow as well with some lenses. Still, a picture taken with care in good light is exactly the same as taken with an X-E2 or X-T1. But the form factor is really a joy to use. It is discrete. It is both classic, and modern. It fits in a large trouser pocket with the 27. It's as well designed as an X100S but with the possibility to put a 35mm F/1.4 or 56mm F/1.2 on it to make excellent interior / low light portraits. I'd be interrested in seing the sale numbers, hope Fuji is on the right track going this SLR-styling and huge lenses way but I have some doubts. It looks to me like they are a bit hungry going for the pros who are tired of DSLRs, and are ok to carry 5 kilos but not 10 anymore, and are slowly abandoning the people that came for lightweight / discretion, just offering something either really dumbed down (X-A2 and plastic zooms) or this X-T10 in the middle of everything yet not quite an X-T1 neither an OM-D and certainly not an X-E. Many others would disagree, but I think they should ditch the X-PRO, keep X-T, X-E and X-A, but this X-T10 if it is the evolution of the X-E won't be good news for many, the pentaprism just screams too much "SLR!!!"

No, it's narrower (-11mm), but much higher (+8mm) and thicker (+2.5mm)

Wow, that makes me really doubt about my future with Fuji then. I got an X-E1 so I can put it in a small pocket when I'm hiking with the 18mm, I understand that people can prefer the DSLR style of the X-T1 so they can look more "pro", or like the EVF in the middle or whatever, but it seems to me that both for lenses and bodies, Fuji is completely abandoning the small and "light" (for the quality) format that once attracted so many people to the line... Or they are keeping X-A line for that but I don't think any enthousiast prefers scene modes and face detection over manual controls. Well I guess there are only so few people looking for a viewfinder and manual controls on a rangefinder-style camera that it's not really profitable for them, must be a niche I suppose...

I like the way you think Milandro, and yes you are right x-tc I sound like a broken record. That is the flickr effect I think, being still terrible at photography but studying as much as I can the masters and putting a lot of effort into it, I'm really annoyed when I see so many people cheering each other for pictures of terribly boring subjects, compositions, light you name it but have a special effect "twist" to them like HDR or ultra-wide. Same as it would be fool to advise an aspiring guitarist to learn how to use the wha pedal or distortion before he even knows the scales and chords, I try to invite people to be cautious with specialty lenses before they get a solid base, but I should probably let it go, after all it's none of my businesses and if they are having fun nobody's being hurt in the process (except for my eyes that are sometimes bleeding heh)

Yeah, obviously fuji don't want to hurt the X100 line otherwise they'd have released a small 23mm instead of 2 wides, 2 macros etc. It's quite annoying but I understand their strategy. OTOH one can have now an X100S for the price of the 23 f/1.4, it's silent, compact and unobtrusive and makes an excellent backup so it's not all that bad.

Hmm, I don't want to spoil your fun and sound like a snob but: an ultra-wide is good/useful when : you want a "memory" of something huge (Niagara, cathedrals...) and have no space to move further away. It's good for abstract architecture shots. Wide is good for emphasing the vastness of a place, ultra-wide questionable. What ultra-wide is definitely not good for, is for making ordinary things look extraordinary (no amount of special effects will do anyway). If that's what you're after, I strongly suggest you to study the work of William Eggleston, or how to use beautiful light and colours to make something beautiful out of the banal. Cheers.

There are many more reasons why it's good, including ooc jpegs and raw with dr unset.

To OP : have you actually tried it in pouring rain? I have quite a lot of backpacking experience, and me and my friends all ditched the rain-cover on our non-photo backpacks, because at some point water gets through and it always gets between your back and the pack anyway, so we put our stuff in waterproof bags inside the backpack and let the pack get wet to solve it.

Obviously people think only about themselves and are unable to see that right now someone who doesn't own an x100 and wants to get one has quite a lot of reasons to grab a T over a S. It's smart from Fuji. Would they put cc and all on the X100S much less people would buy the T. I think they know very well that someone who already owns a S will not that likely upgrade, and probably wait for the next gen, the decision to not upgrade the S is not meant to push them towards the T, it's meant for the newcomers to grab the T IMO. Now all this "if Fuji doesn't upgrade my camera that was so awesome 1 year ago, but now doesn't have the same feature as the newest one so it's suddenly a piece of junk, I QUIT U BE WARNED FUJI !!!!" is so pathetic... Better laugh about it I suppose.

Why not the 18? It's small, cheap, unobtrusive, quite fast it's perfect for street imo

I was referring to the fact that patrick already owns the 18-55 so that would have covered your example shots at 18 and 23, I'm not saying the 10-24 is bad in any way, just that the 10-14 mm range is well, a personal taste one must really have otherwise it might not be the smartest choice out of the available lenses. Since there is no bad lens in the Fuji range there's no need to defend one or the other, if that works for you and your needs it's totally fine, I just like to invite people to define their needs precisely, that usually helps them to make a smart choice

Haha well I find it entertaining to add a bit of verve on forums, and I'm always interrested in people that have kind of "radical" point of views and are not afraid to express them. We can all say "I have this and wish I'd have that" one after the other but that's not really interresting now is it? I'd like people to say WHY they want these lens, to do what stuff with it etc. and why they think Fuji should develop something not yet advertised.

Well for the 18 and 23 the 18-55 would have done at least as good if not better, and for the 10mm it's really a personal thing I guess, I don't see the point but I respect your choice/taste

.

See this is interresting because the masters that are using wide to "get it all in" and get "really close and personal" like William Klein or Bruce Gilden use 28mm (so that's 18mm for us fujis) How much closer do you want to be than Bruce Gilden? Lens in the nose and flash directly in the ear? Using wider lenses can make sense for landscape (if you like distortion) or architecture (same thing) or absolutely want the picture and have no space to move, but I would object that it's really, really rare to be in such a situation where perspective distortion is better than getting only a part of it well framed. I find it's either good if you like to "play, toy around" (not that there is anything wrong with that, I love it too) or don't embrass the idea that photography is never showing everything, and the best ones never do anyway (Parr would say photography is propaganda and I completely agree). Maybe this is getting too philosophical and not enough gear-oriented tho, but imo it's worth thinking about the approach before buying anything photo related. What for exactly? Does it fill a need, or a want? Will that make me a better photograph, or should I spend the money in books, gas, courses? Am I being bored and feel I need a new toy to feel creative again? If that sounds kind of rude I'm sorry it's not meant to, just more food for thought and probably a more difficult decision in the end

I mean perspective distortion, not barrel distortion. A picture being worth a thousand words : Why not after all, if one is into this kind of things I'm not judging, just saying that it is more of a "niche" than something generally useful (again, in my book, to each his own) and I would have liked the shot done with a 14mm and "reasonable" perspective distortion probably a lot more than at 10mm.

I ordered the Tamrac Apache 2 and will see how it turns out for my needs, which are : lightweight (so Apache 4 or retrospective 5 at 1 kilo are already too much for me), space for camera + lens, 1 or 2 small extra lenses, water bottles and a few little things. I especially have to see if a 7" tablet will fit as I plan to get one at some point, and if it works it will be tight at best. I think that in the end I'll eventually want a retrospective 5 but can't justify the extra 100€ over the Apache 2 (prefer to spend in glass and fuel to make pictures for now, we'll see in winter) plus it can be a good idea to have both, the Apache 2 for lightweight / small kit, bushwhacking and the retrospective when I need the extra space and am in a "safe" environment. If I keep the Apache I'll just unsew the Tamrac logo not a big deal.