jigesh

Smorton:
 
It depends on what you do (hobby vs. commercial, wild-life/sports vs. travel, etc.). Nikon FX (D810, D750) to any DX including X-T2 is a step down (just my view, others may disagree) in terms of focus accuracy, depth of field, and overall image quality (not to say Nikon raw files are much easier to work with in LR than Fuji's). The difference is quite noticeable and I have seen this first hand. Ideally, X-T2 can be an excellent addition to a D810 or D750 setup rather than substitution, of course, if money permits. Again, my personal view, not trying to upset anyone.
 
However, FX lenses (good quality, f1.4 or f1.8 or f2.8) are much bigger/heavier and so is the FX DSLR camera and flash. I shoot family and travel and don't make money out of photography. For me, X-T2 + lenses are easy to carry and less eye-catching (than Nikon setup). The pictures are also excellent, colors are great and the move (Nikon FX DSLR to Fuji DX mirrorless) serves my purpose. After all, moments, subjects and light play a much bigger role in how memorable your picture will be than the hardware one uses. What I don't like about X-T2 (coming from a decade worth of using FX) is native ISO of 200 (which I would have liked to be at least 100), and not being able to use as fast a shutter speed for a given aperture as on FX. Lighting system is also missing with Fuji though EF-X500 is a good first step.
 
Good luck.
 
EDIT: By the way, if you never had a good FX camera setup, you won't have any previous bias/way to compare. Make no mistake, X-T2 is a great camera and Fuji has excellent lens lineup. You'll love the pictures you get from X-T2.

I had D810 and D750. In my experience they both produce better images than X-T2 which I now own and enjoy for portability reasons.

I recently switched all my pro Canon gear for the new Fuji X-T and tons of glass.
 
Every-time I shoot with it I am amazed, and have never looked back!
 
Concert shoot with X-T2 + XF50-140
 
Old Dominion by Matthew Perry, on Flickr
 
"Said Nobody Ever" by Matthew Perry, on Flickr

Smorton:
 
It depends on what you do (hobby vs. commercial, wild-life/sports vs. travel, etc.). Nikon FX (D810, D750) to any DX including X-T2 is a step down (just my view, others may disagree) in terms of focus accuracy, depth of field, and overall image quality (not to say Nikon raw files are much easier to work with in LR than Fuji's). The difference is quite noticeable and I have seen this first hand. Ideally, X-T2 can be an excellent addition to a D810 or D750 setup rather than substitution, of course, if money permits. Again, my personal view, not trying to upset anyone.
 
However, FX lenses (good quality, f1.4 or f1.8 or f2.8) are much bigger/heavier and so is the FX DSLR camera and flash. I shoot family and travel and don't make money out of photography. For me, X-T2 + lenses are easy to carry and less eye-catching (than Nikon setup). The pictures are also excellent, colors are great and the move (Nikon FX DSLR to Fuji DX mirrorless) serves my purpose. After all, moments, subjects and light play a much bigger role in how memorable your picture will be than the hardware one uses. What I don't like about X-T2 (coming from a decade worth of using FX) is native ISO of 200 (which I would have liked to be at least 100), and not being able to use as fast a shutter speed for a given aperture as on FX. Lighting system is also missing with Fuji though EF-X500 is a good first step.
 
Good luck.
 
EDIT: By the way, if you never had a good FX camera setup, you won't have any previous bias/way to compare. Make no mistake, X-T2 is a great camera and Fuji has excellent lens lineup. You'll love the pictures you get from X-T2.

I had D810 and D750. In my experience they both produce better images than X-T2 which I now own and enjoy for portability reasons.

I shoot with a D600 and D750. I also shoot Canons and Fujifilm. I agree with Jigesh that these produce better images than the X-T1 or T2.
 
Nikon glass renders beautiful colors and images. Has more "depth" to it.
 
Also, I find that Nikon lenses suffer less from what modern lenses may suffer from. "Sterile" pictures. In today's quest for impeccable sharpness and edge to edge performance, we seem to be trading artistic render for MTF charts.
 
But I digress....
 
http://www.thephoblographer.com/2016/10/26/sterile-look-problems-camera-lenses-good/

Yes.
I purchased two X-T2's.
Two metal grips.
One booster grip.
I will rarely need the booster grip, as that's not the usual type of shooting I do, but I foresee an occasional real need for the booster, so I got one.
Thus the two metal grips are always on the two cameras.
The booster is in the bag.
I hate the ergonomics of the X-T2 (and X-T1) without the added metal grip as my pinkie has no where to go and the camera is unbalanced without it.
I consider the metal grip a MUST have!
For me much more so than the booster.
 
I left the DSLR world of two Canon 5D MK3's and all primes and "L"'s for the Fuji system because of the size/weight/intimidation factor of the DSLR's.
 
The booster is a big step in the wrong direction for me.
 
The grips are a nominal addition of size and weight and payoff big time in ergonomics.
 
Peter
 
www.kma438.com
www.tmaxphoto.com

no.
 
..and not a dumb question.

When in "AM," increment hour digit beyond 12 (noon) and it will turn "PM."

90mm f2: portraits and medium tele would be my suggestion.

90mm f2: portraits and medium tele would be my suggestion.