citral

I don't understand where this thread is heading. It's nice that you all have various wishes, think they are relevant and that Fuji is reading you here and will listen but I would kind of guess you're all wrong and it's futile. Medium Format. The end.

Oh certainly, there can be some aspects of the prime you like more in the final images, I always forget to put here and there a "for me" and sound like I have been enlightened with absolute truth, sorry.

Nice slip of the tongue haha

I like this picture, wildlife pictures that have context, somehow tell a story. If I want to crop it to death I can do that on my own. Well done.

I wouldn't do that either, the 35 is an incredible lens, not as discrete as the 27mm but so good you can't really swap. OTOH a 40mm equivalent is a bit more versatile than 53 so... I'd say take either both, or the 35 only, but not the 27 only. I have thought about it again, and would maybe take the 35 and 18-55 tho instead of 35 + 18. There are times a 23mm is great to have (I sometimes find myself cornered in narrow streets with the 35), and it's better than the 18 on the wide end, so why not. But that's because I have the 35. If I only could take one, that would be it and not the 18-55. For you that would begin to get quite heavy tho with all the other lenses.

It's quite good, imagine it as a painting the composition and perspective are interesting. Always found teles boring when shooting horizontally but interesting from above anyway. Also, while usually the centre of the frame is not the best place to put a subject it works in this case.

It really depends what kind of shots you are after IMHO. If it's memories of places you visited, a zoom is perfect. If you're after more artsy/memorable pics, usually it's not by taking a picture of the whole Eiffel tower that you achieve that. There are thousands around, this is not to say it's not enjoyable to make it nor to look at it and think "I did it!". It's not a critic at all. Imo again, if you want to make more memorable shots, it can be good to work with a 23 or 35 the whole day, and only reach for the 18 or 60 when you really need that angle or it emphasis the subject. Can also be achieved with a zoom, but it's always very tempting to zoom in/out instead of moving and that doesn't yield better pictures usually. YMMV, but I'd take a 18 and 35 anytime over the zoom to get "at work" (I like it on hard mode and think I progress that way, found the 18-55 made me quickly lazy).

Hope in better hardware / software is just an excuse for delaying working with what I have at the moment. A terrible excuse.

Weight.

Mate, way too much "analysis" or may I say "bar counter psychology". My point is you criticised my previous avatar for being offensive, mocking someone who can't handle a camera properly. As everybody understand, an avatar depicts one self so it's only self derision as I consider myself a complete noob (albeit with an eye and a rapidly growing photography culture, see I'm not that hard on myself). Also loved how the camera strap turned into an infinity symbol, I love symbols. Many ways to interpret a picture. You didn't even know that picture was from a world famous photographer, yet you found it a shame, so heh I suggest you spend less time thinking about gear and more time in photography books. Being cynical / corrosive / ironic does not necessarily mean one is unhappy with himself and hard on himself and the others. It can just be the mark of self derision and having found oneself (which usually means accepting you can't please everyone). Not everybody gets it and certainly not carebears, always has been always will. Anyway both our replies are way off-topic so I suggest if you want to respond, to do so per PM, it's not a battle arena but a public forum, and I will happily discuss with you in private about my supposed unhappiness.

As I'm not familiar with the idea of electronic shutter I've read some things about it, and it said something like if anything is moving in the frame it produces artefacts, that's why we still use mechanical shutters whenever possible. So is this really a desirable feature or just something handy when nothing else can do (shooting at f/1.4 in bright sunlight) ? Sorry if I sound stupid to people who know better.

Is this world famous photograph, by the same artist, better? I guess not for you heh, but meanwhile he's rich and famous while we're nobodies so can't really argue if it's good or bad taste. Anyway yes, which formulation you like most, I'm not trying to impose my own wording, glad you got the idea.

I don't find it a problem, as when I'm taking my camera out of the bag it's to make pictures so the cap might as well go off from itself heh. If the camera is hanging around my neck I don't put a cap on it. The hood greatly protects the lens.

So you could just do that as well x-tc Had you been reasonable and rephrased to "Looks like almost on par (or in some cases even better) zoom to prime IQ is no longer reserved to Fuji lens." would you have avoided a useless s**tstorm and we could have focused on content and discussion instead of splitting hairs. It's not the same as "Looks like on par zoom to prime IQ" and that's why I was so reluctant to agree as it feels a bit like being robbed from a bit of truth in the process heh.

Is there any reason to think that Fuji monitors (have enough resources to monitor) forums like this one to see what people are asking for? If so it's great, and I see absolutely no reason to complain they are preparing an update in regard to customers reaction, and how they should have begun preparing it before people started to ask for it (do people ever stop asking for features?), the end result is the same and we will never know exactly anyway. Must not be that easy when your own fan base is the hardest on you...

Thank you mjh, it takes some writing but it's really much better to share that knowledge to us who don't know so much than just passing it as common knowledge, very valuable.

I was thinking more about something like it won't get 1 or 2 updates the x-t1 gets. Like it won't get the finer gridlines (lol) or exposure compensation in manual (lol^2). And people will be all over the place bitching how it's unfair and they better get it or else...

What keeps me from shooting film again, is that while not being a hippie I do care about environment, and those chemicals are really nasty. That's a point for digital, missed, bad, uninteresting shots do no harm at all.

Well don't get your hopes too high, there WILL be something to complain about, heh.

Well according to the poll 80% of the people find it a great idea. Oh, the humanity...

Agree with absolutely everything you said. Yes the first one has something missing, looks a bit lifeless, hard to explain what. However it looks like film and the colours are beautiful. Yes the train station probably means something only to me, and I exacerbated the empty feeling by not including any human. I don't know how to name this thread. It's not really about vintage, originally it was an open thread to post ooc uncropped jpegs, because I find that interesting (to work more on content, composition, light and colours and get it right with the camera, instead of tweaking around to make a not that great picture appear visually appealing). Then flysurfer, misunderstanding the concept I suppose, begun to dump 3 pages of ooc "showcase" jpegs which had nothing to do with what I meant, even if a few pictures were interesting / good. It's now named Rico's OOC jpegs. It's useful but not what I intended. Thank you for your feedback. I will print the Peugeot picture, quite sure it will look nice on matte paper.

So many better things to do... They should really leave that to third parties. Small and WR 18 and 23 f/2 I'd begin with after that 35 to come. WR RF body. WR 16-35 f/2.8 OIS WR 12-18 f/2.8 OIS

Badly formulated, I should have said "quietest and fastest before the new gen came out like 23mm" probably, when I purchased the 18-55 it had the pre-latest firmware and iirc it had already a great deal of optimisations compared to the first fw version. So it's faster and quieter than the original 3 primes to be clear.

I would happily trade my 18-55 for that! The 35-55 range is not really useful for general purpose to me, as it doesn't make very good portraits at 55 f/4, and I see no reason to zoom from 35 to 55 to capture something instead of moving a few steps closer.

X-tc, you have to understand that what catches the eye of a photographer and he finds interesting or amusing does not necessarily mean he's mocking that. The woman on my avatar might very well be the nicest person on earth. It is a Martin Parr picture by the way. He's a very nice man who depicts what is absurd in our society and is extremely successful and well regarded. Anyway, you only own zooms apart from the 27mm so I understand that you cannot make real tests to make your point if challenged. Yet you don't either provide a compilation of links for review, a sigma vs canon video does not lead to the conclusion "Fuji zooms have on par IQ with primes". I could do that work, and it would not turn the way you want to hear it, so you could continue to pretend you ignore it because of who I am and not because of the results but it has little interest. Rest assured I'm not judging you personally as I don't know you, only the way you act on the forum. Anyway all in all it has little interest, if someone wants to claim on par IQ to make himself feel better with his purchase I don't know why I care so much in the end, so I will stop there and let you feel happy with your illusion