citral

There is really no need to try so hard to defend one or the other. If you like the small rf style and to take your time X-E are still great cameras, even the X-E1. If you like something faster and more responsive the X-T line is the way to go (well good luck with the X-T10 buffer tho). Personally I'm gonna beat my X-E1 to death until X-T1 price drops somewhere around 700€ that's the value I put on it. The X-E1 will remain a great take everywhere cam with a 27 or 35 1.4 on it. I mean it still takes greater pictures than the internet can handle, we'll see once we all get fiber and 4k screens, until then...

Awesome Joergs

Fstop stfu. This thread is already way too sexist, I had the same thought as Imirante even if I'm a man who don't especially appreciate feminism. I really did think gosh, are gearheads really only a bunch of angry macho nerds? It's disturbing. Anyway to stay OT I'd answer something simple like it's the same as between an intel i7 and an i5. You don't really NEED it, but it's nice to have it and it will last longer before you feel the need to replace it. Even if it has absolutely nothing to do, that will ring a bell.

So in short, you're never happy with what you have.

Well my point is the X-E line has never been advertised or intended as sport cameras, so while there are some workarounds, it's never gonna be that great. Asking Fuji to adjust is just like asking Burton hey guys, I bought this freestyle snowboard and I can't win speed races with it please update.

Nice pictures on your site BTW, looks really pro. Maybe instead of getting angry at camera x not behaving like camera y you could have tried reducing shutter speed to say 1000, and use a smaller f-stop to get a wider dof and increase the size of the AF square, it helps a lot with AF speed on the X-E models. I doubt you were manual focusing sport at f/2 in the past?

Camera X needs Y and here is why : camera Z does it better so I MUST have it. More news at 11.

18, 27, 35 would be my pick. If I traded the 18-55 for 18 and 27 which I'm still debating with myself. 27 to pack it in a simple pouch everyday in my bag, for hiking and for street candids. 35 if I'm going out for more serious "work" but still want it very light. All three for travel.

That's a simple answer indeed. Too simple. A good photo does not always need to include everything. In fact most of the photos that do include everything look boring to me, they look like some kind of postcards. I don't have the pics at hand, but I came recently accross a beautiful Peugeot 404 Injection, open-top, rented for a wedding. I tried to take a pic of the whole car. From the side, from the front at an angle, from the rear at an angle, tried to get the maximum of it. Then before I left I tried a last snap : I took only the rear right light at an angle to make a big "V" in the pic and a small piece of a white wedding ribbon to give a hint. Guess which one looked the most interresting when I reviewed them at home. This is my personal preference, I don't say it's better than anyone else's preference but that's just to say "wide enough" is a highly subjective concept.

No troll : I think they should not propose anything and remain on their stance : no more FW update for the X100S. Any of the two options proposed will make half of the people rage. Free? There's not enough in it! I would pay for one with MOARRRR etc. etc. Paid? Unfair, Mercantile, What has Fuji become, We're not cash cows, Should be free, etc. etc. Fuji will be known for changing their mind if enough people bug them all the time with new fancy stuff they want. This will splash on all other products, and those to come. They will appear weak and while some people will have the impression they "won a battle" everybody willl lose in the end. There is one thing I agree with tho : the battery indicator. For me it's a bug, not a feature.

Bokeh : From Japanese 暈け (boke, “blur”), the nominalized form of the verb 暈ける (bokeru, “to blur (intransitive)”). Term used by photography enthousiasts to describe the effect of turning poorly chosen backgrounds ionto gold with big dollars. Also see : so creamyyyyy omg, getting creative with photography, my bokeh is creamier than urs

OOC jpegs again. No attempt made to make nature look more or less beautiful than what it is. Have a duck day. Quaaaaack by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr

How I see Watermarks by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr

Why do people put watermarks? It doesn't prevent anybody from "stealing it" if they really wanted that (highly doubtful, especially flower pictures), copyright does. A watermark is not a copyright it has absolutely no value. It however prevents people who would be tempted to, to print or share you picture, making you a little bit more known in the process. A terrible idea really.

That second picture has some weird issues

Nah "DOF too short" is called omgbokehhh, it turns poorly chosen backgrounds into skills and creativity you don't get it.

Pardon me, what are people trying to protect their pictures from exactly with those watermarks? I see none on very famous photographer's pictures.

YES! Three times yes! Oh god someone got it at last, all hope is not lost faith in humanity restored.

B&W does not always enhance the subject, otherwise cool car and picture.

So you picked up the wrong tool and now the company has to adjust for your special needs. Selling amateur kids videos to clients, 4k please. Rrrrright. If Fuji took off in the first place, it's because they offered a photographer's camera in a market saturated with mass-consumer devices (they are poor man's leica if you like). Asking them to adjust to Sony and signing up their downfall because it happens you suddenly could make money with video is really unbelievable. Ah well I guess nowadays selfishness has become the norm.

Not everybody is doing formal/posed portraiture, I think it can be good for wedding candid portraits for example.

Not a pancake at all. Can be less intimidating / more discrete than the f/1.4 tho because the diameter of the glass makes it look less like a SLR lens (that's a concern I have with the 18-55 and 35, if you're in front of people they don't ignore it like they would a harmless 27mm)

Why? To me a camera of this format will never achieve really good video. It's not steady, there's no room for big hardware and proper ventilation, it can be a convenience but that's it, so HD is more than enough to record your drunken friends. Get a Phantom or something if you're into video. Better get something really good at 1 thing than a jack-of-all-trades vaguely ok at everything.

If you want to have a look at how to make beautiful pictures with "nothing" (well, with what you have, even if it doesn't look exciting / exotic) I suggest one of the cheap Eggleston's book : Guide or Paris He doesn't explain anything tho, as for him pictures have nothing to do with words so it's up to you to analyse light, composition etc. If you want to have a look at how to make something that looks like a soap opera or a postcard with a funny twist, I suggest one of the cheap Martin Parr's book like "Life's a Beach". The beach bag version is lovely and can give you a LOT of new ideas to try. For books with words about photography I'll leave that to others.

For me it mostly depends if I'm with gf/friends or alone. If I have people with me I use mostly the zoom because I don't want to bother them waiting for the right people entering my frame, taking time for composition etc. That is very annoying for people not into photography so I just take "snapshots". I will then switch for a fast prime if we enter a building. If I'm alone a prime is mounted as I take a hell lot of time and want to make the best shots I can and spend literally hours. The zoom is there if I ever need a focale I don't have, but almost never gets mounted as I prefer to move with my feet and am OK with "letting go" a great deal of pictures I don't really feel.