citral

I've yet to read the manual but this could be finally an upgrade/companion for my x-e1. Note that for me, weight and compactness is of upmost importance because I hike multi days with my gear. I will keep the x-e1 forever because I think that sensor had the best jpegs ever though. Functionalities : the iso dial is clunky, never use it on my x100f, wheel is more convenient, or fn+dpad on x-e1, fine for me. Focus lever I only use if I put a manual m42 lens, or in very special circumstances on fuji lenses, won't be missed. The q menu I use quite a lot though, so that's something to check in the manual. The gain over x-e1 would be the tilting screen (when hiking it's not great to get dirty to take a flower for example), new film sims, great autonomy.
Personally never missed wr on my fujis they handle rain fine, and it adds cost and weight. Ymmv.
I get the complains that it looks dumbed down but I don't think it's really the case here. It's a design choice that I get, as long as there are alternatives to quick access preferred settings, it's ok. The goal is to take pictures anyway, not operate a hundred buttons. I set my iso, aperture, verify the speed is fine and shoot personally, rather than obsess over features.
 

Hi there, it's been a long time. I still shoot (mostly) sooc jpeg with my X-E1, and 35mm f/1.4 mostly, still have the 18mm f2 but added the 50mm f2 to my collection, and now ordered an X100F to have a "take everywhere" camera. I will upgrade the x-e1 to an x-pro2 at some point once it gets cheaper tho, and replace the 18 f/2 with the 16 f/2.8.
Also I have a lens turbo II with a 30€ helios 44-2 which reminds me everytime I shoot it that sharpness is really a gimmick.
 
35mm f1.4
DSCF2324 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr
DSCF2215 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr
DSCF3880 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr
DSCF3900 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr
DSCF3906 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr
DSCF3504 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr
DSCF1558 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr
Helios 44-2
DSCF4519 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr
DSCF4424 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr
DSCF4427 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr
DSCF4464 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr
DSCF4476 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr
50mm f2
DSCF2551 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr
DSCF2549 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr
DSCF2301 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr
 
 

A Parresque moment
 
DSCF6719 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr

More OOC Jpegs. Busy week-end, not interrested in post-processing. Everything on 35mm f/1.4.
 
DSCF6071 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr
 
DSCF6084 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr
 
DSCF6109 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr
 
DSCF6129 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr
 
DSCF6132 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr
 
DSCF6175 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr
 
DSCF6195 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr
 
DSCF6003 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr
 
DSCF6023 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr
 
DSCF6199 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr

By the way critics, even harsh, are welcome.
 
Here is a picture of something vintage that is not an OOC Jpeg, because it didn't do any justice to it. I used the Pro Neg Hi Lightroom profile tho.
 
Bugatti 35B - 1929 - Mollkirch 2015 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr

Day 1 : There is something to be said about the sheer simplicity and joy of capturing something just because it looks beautiful and without trying too hard to make it exceptional. Kind of when people used to shoot with film.
 
This is not a showcase of the X-E1 jpeg output, just simple pictures with processing left to the camera and no cropping.
 
Here are 3 shots of nothing spectacular I enjoy so far because they have really nice colours and/or light :
 
Sélestat - 2015 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr
 
Molsheim - 2015 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr
 
404 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr

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.

DSCF2098 by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr
 
Rosheim, France. The oversaturated look is intended as it was a "postcards from Elsass" project when I just started using my fuji. It also enhances the fact that the old woman has a blue dress and a yellow bag of exactly the same tones than the post logo. It was an amusing project, but I don't do oversaturated colours anymore these days.

How I see Watermarks by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr

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.

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.

Finally I've bitten the bullet and got a retrospective 7, to also double as everyday pack.
 
And when about everyone on the internet claim it's the best money can buy, everyone is not wrong.
 
Yes it's double the price of a Tamrac Apache but it's worth 5 times that in quality, look and feel. That thing will last 10 to 20 years for sure, and damn is it comfortable for the weight!
 
Sorry OP, and I tried.

X-E2S Comparison:
 
GFXA3178 by Rico Pfirstinger, auf Flickr
 
GFXA3184 by Rico Pfirstinger, auf Flickr
 
GFXA3187 by Rico Pfirstinger, auf Flickr

Also again, we don't hate technology. Just as we would not wish to use a touchscreen for our desktop PC, we don't wish a touchscreen on our camera, but embrace cpu upgrades, fast SSDs etc.
 
Ergonomics buddy.

I'm still debating with myself if 9.V.III is a troll (a bad one but whatever) or not. It's entertaining tho. Speaking endlessly about technology and "must have" shiny features, counting buttons, wondering about processor cooling, completely ignoring photography, art, process, FEELING. Let me have a rough guess : you never actually took a decent picture in your whole life. But it's all technology's fault, it was not advanced enough for you, Western World Mastermind. Here, have a pat. That x-e3 will finally allow you to fullfil your incredible potential. Or not.

Because I'm concerned about weight when hiking for 3 days in complete autonomy and don't really need an ovf, as well as finding until now the x-e priced exactly where I situate my level of photography. 
I need manual controls. That's what made me deeply enjoy photography, get involved and decent (I hope) at it. That analog feel. Have fun with your clean look and touchscreen thingy, can't wait to see what you do with it and how it takes better pictures than an x-e2 when you'll be fumbling with it instead of concentrating on what happens around you.
 
Yes, I'm kind of bitter because I feel let down by Fuji who I thought, had understood that many people like me wanted a modern analog camera. Now they're going full retard on technology, but technology per se never made great pictures. It can make life easier, but when overdone like this, it can also get in the way.
 
I'm still young but drive a 1992 Mercedes because it will never let me down and I don't need all the electronics of modern cars that I see failing day after day all around me. I still like a modern car if I rent one, but daily? No thanks. I vape on a regulated device at home because I appreciate the electronics in it, but if I go out for a week I grab my mechanical mod because it can't just stop working suddenly. I guess I'm just not into stupid consumerism and "newer is always better" I like reliable, sound stuff that doesn't decide for me what is best and when it will cease working.
 
This X-E3 is just a soul-less electronic device. I don't get emotional with my smartphone either. I am with my X-E1 because it has soul.

Oh right, that's why when tablets became widespread it would be the end of the desktop as we know it. Not only it is not, manufacturers have backpedaled and added a keyboard to their devices (like the microsoft surface) when people started to realize you cannot work efficiently that way (writing long posts and emails on touchscreen, how convenient).
 
A touchscreen has its use when portability is a must and time/working "blind" is not an issue. It is not a "must-have" on a camera. You're obviously more a gearhead than a photographer, I understand there is a market for that and Fuji is maybe right to go in that direction, but maybe not.

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.

What are you talking about? Lack of d-pad means lack of 4 fn buttons! You may never use but for me it enough reason to reject such camera because it will lenght camera operation when I need to set features in the fly in street shooting and reportage. I remember time when Fuji users asked Fuji for "1 more fn button", but now it takes off four of them! Touched lcd does not replece it at all.

Uh, no, APS-C has reached a point it is miles ahead of what full-frame was a few years ago, without the lenses size / weight.

Oh boy. So instead of making a lightweight X-PRO2 they are going full "camera for idiots who want electronics shinies and full auto mode" /facepalm. I was waiting to decide but nope, it will be an x-pro2 and I'll keep my X-E1 for hiking, thank you very much you can keep your X-M2.

Oh boy. So instead of making a lightweight X-PRO2 they are going full "camera for idiots who want electronics shinies and full auto mode" /facepalm. I was waiting to decide but nope, it will be an x-pro2 and I'll keep my X-E1 for hiking, thank you very much you can keep your X-M2.

Oh boy. So instead of making a lightweight X-PRO2 they are going full "camera for idiots who want electronics shinies and full auto mode" /facepalm. I was waiting to decide but nope, it will be an x-pro2 and I'll keep my X-E1 for hiking, thank you very much you can keep your X-M2.

The "soft", "unsharp", "unacceptable" 18mm F2 @ F2 sooc jpeg :