darknj

Thanks to the false alarm by Phil *nudge*nudge* I would like to leave the 23mm F2.8 pancake wishlist here ! 

There is no doubt (in my mind) that using any adapted lens ( also considering the inherent constructive problems mentioned in the other thread about the quality of adapted analog lenses in digital photography) implies at least a certain degree of contradiction and the only thing that really justifies it is the fun factor ( I know, I know....: “  Got a problem with adaptive photography? I like it....!”     )
 
 
http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/743-just-how-well-do-adapted-lenses-originally-meant-for-film-work-on-digital-cameras/
 
 
It is a bit like using a modern supercar but putting old ‘50 tires to feel what it was like driving with a yesteryear supercar.
 
You will get a different , though perhaps uncomfortable and dangerous, while certainly “ interesting “ ride but it won’t be a yesteryear car experience anyway.
 
But I digress.
 
So the ultimate in this quest for contradiction ( in the name of an interesting effect) has to be using the most retro of the modern lenses available ( available at a pretty penny!) to us, the Petzval!
 
Lomographers resurrected the lens from oblivion and it has been with us for quite some time.
 
What are your experiences, if any, with this lens combined to a modern Fuji camera?

Thanks to the false alarm by Phil *nudge*nudge* I would like to leave the 23mm F2.8 pancake wishlist here ! 

Thanks to the false alarm by Phil *nudge*nudge* I would like to leave the 23mm F2.8 pancake wishlist here ! 

12mm for certain, Spain has too many places where going wide is much wanted.
 
I would take the 35mm only if you plan visiting places with low light or during late night time, considering it's summer, the sky would stay relatively well light up to around 9PM, thus the 18-55 might be more versatile here.
 
As for the last one, it's fully optional, but I personnally hate not having enough reach, so I would pack for the 50-230, not in the everyday bag but at least in the suitcase so you can grab it when you feel like you would need it.
 
On a regular days, the 12mm and the 18-55 would be versatile enough for most cities, I would use the 50-230 for places like inside buildings, chapels and other places you want to take specific things out and swap it out with the 18-55 on the carry on bag.

I have a friend who owns an international company involved in the trade of airplane parts, compared to some airplane parts, the cost of a lensmate is peanuts but let’s be serious, airplane parts are entrusted with human lives!
 
Different territory!

I started with film some 20-ish years ago and still use film. 35mm, medium format and large format.

If Fuji cameras actually acted, felt or gave results like my film cameras, I wouldn't own any Fuji cameras. Fuji cameras only seem like film cameras to people who remember film but haven't actually used it any time recently. The difference in look between the Fuji film simulations and their actual film counterparts—when the film is processed correctly, at least—is gigantic. The difference in operation is huge. Mirrorless is the very opposite of shooting film.
 
Whenever somebody says any modern camera—be it a Fuji or something run through a VSCO filter or whatever—looks like film or reminds them of film, I can't help but frown. These days, "it looks just like film!" means "it looks like film which was poorly exposed, then poorly processed, then poorly scanned": clipping to grey rather than actual black and white; huge, blobby noise; nothing actually in focus; smeary tints. When somebody says a camera feels like an old film camera, all they mean is it has more than one top dial and no touch screen.

If people want a camera which feels like an old film camera and they want a look like film, buy a Canon A-1. You can pick them up in good condition with renewed seals for <£100 with a lens and they have shutter, aperture and P exposure modes, so you don't have to worry about developing a feel for exposure. The AE-1 was the first consumer camera with auto exposure and that's even cheaper, you can get that for under £50 with a lens. Film may cost £5 a roll and another £6-7 to have developed, but the price difference between that and buying something like an X-Pro1 will count for a hundred rolls or more. Want the full film experience? 6x6 and 6x7 medium format film cameras from Pentax and Mamiya can be had for <£500. 6x4.5 are even cheaper. Congratulations, you've just gone bigger than 35mm "full frame" and you've spent less than an X-E2 and one lens costs.

I shoot film of all types, I always have done and will continue to do so as long as my work demands it, and I think anybody who buys a Fuji for any percieved film-like qualities is A) delusional/misguided and  completely misplacing their money.

For the record, I started buying Fuji because I wanted a walkabout camera with a better screen than your typical cheap point-and-shoot, and the X100S fit that. I'm in the process or moving all of my gear over to Fuji (can't do it 100% yet until they get over 20mp and make a 70mm f/2) because I like the tilt screens on the X-T1 and X-T10. That's it. If they were actually anything like my film cameras, I never would have touched this brand.

If you think we have it bad at the moment, wait until around 2020, the data consumption is estimated to be multiplied by 10.
 
My household of 3, not counting the 3/4G network, we each use at the very least 2GB of data (up and down) per day outside of week-end, that numbers can reach up to 10 GB per persons on days off and week-ends.

I keep thinking that instead of thinking it as a battle, why not integrate it ? At least part of the technology.
There have been bits and pieces coming around, like the touch screen or the like the Samsung NX500 which has a contextual menu very akin to those on a smart phone. The placement of UI is also very well done and a lot more intuitive than many of the camera constructors at the moment.
 
Now, do I believe that smartphones will win the battle against real cameras ? No, at one point customer would want something of higher quality, that can only push us, as professional photographers, to do even better to show our customer base why our prices are high for a "simple" wedding and their smartphones going to fail the job or have that unique day in their life ruined because cousin Tim has a nice pro camera.
 
Still, I get a great laugh when I see some ppl trying to take a picture with their 10" tablet. Ever since I learned photography the smartphones have been nothing but a ultimate fall back solution if I really don't have anything else with me, which doesn't happen often.
I am not saying that you can't get good, or even great picture with smartphones, I have seen a guy's amazing gallery and he only had a smartphone.
 
On my trip to Hong Kong, I saw quite a number of young trendy hipster doing Lomo, it's quite different from what I do, but I am still happy to see that there are youngster doing photography and enjoying it. 

I hope so too......Although, Art as we know it can sometimes be anti-technology. Our instagram "Cartier-Bresson" may prove that you don't need a 50mpix DSLR to create art.
 
I'm also a member of the audiophile community. The Ipods and smartphones literally killed the HiFi industry. While I reminisce about Quads and Rogers or Snell Acoustics, I also get funny looks from my younger peers. 

It's kind of hard to say how things will evolve in the future, Kodak being the perfect example in this case, they went from the pinacle of photography world to bankrupcy in a matter of a few years.
 
Will Instagram and other copies of it live long enough for our next generation to see it disapear still remain something of unknown.
 
But the popularity of the buil-in filters in smartphones boosted the photograhy world, maybe not in the direction would have liked it, but still more and more picture and being taken every single day, out of those a small percentage is going to pick up a real camera one day and who knows, maybe one of them could be the next Cartier-Bresson.

darknj,
 
My XF 27 sticks out about 5mm beyond the MHG-XT (normal size). Might be a different story with the MHG-XT large.
 
The N1 primarily gets used for outdoor sports. Best tool I have for that. Different horses for different courses. There is no perfect camera for everything. ;-)

Kodak had every opportunity to take the lead in digital photography.  They used to manufacture the digital backs for all the camera manufacturers.  They opted out of the digital market.  The first digital I ever shot with said Nikon on the front, and Kodak on the back.  The thing weighed a ton, but it was a revelation at the time in photography.
 

I prefer to have a lighter every day bag and use a camera bag only when traveling abroad.
 
In that respect my go to bag a cheap innocent looking Fossil Wagner Mens City Bag. It's small enough but I can still carry with me:
 
- X-T1
- 27mm F2.8
- 35mm F1.4
- 18-135mm F3.5-5.6
- 3 batteries + Traveler friendly charger with micro USB cable
- BlackRapid Metro strap
- A pocket WiFi (turns 3g into WiFi for non 3G devices)
- Nexus 7 2013 ed.
- Kindle Paperwhite
- 30cm x 30cm micro fiber cleaning cloth
- Lens cleaning kit (cloth, brush, small bottle of cleaning liquid)
- Couple of pens
- A small 20L foldable bag for just in case I would need to do groceries
 
 
Had to steal some of the paddings from my camera bag but I am quite happy with this set-up at the moment.

The 18-135 is lens of compromise, you lose a bit of light/speed and some sharpness to have something that will almost be able to bring you back a picture of whatever you point it at.
 
The 5 stops OIS is also really nice, I can often shot at 1/20 even fully extended at 135mm handheld and not have a speckle of camera shake.

To add to the conversation, considering how "young" the digital cameras are, it's pretty impossible to find a photographer that had a long career by shooting only digital.
 
A couple of years ago I traveled to Hong-Kong and went to the FilMe shop, as you can guess they are pretty much the film specialist and I rented the Hasselblad Xpan with 35mm F4 lens, a roll of ISO800 film and spent the day in Hong Kong.
I have to say that it was both a pleasant and frustrating time, I believe it was a lot due to the camera, it took piuctures directly in landscape format and it throws away all your general photography habits about composition.
 
In overall, it was sort of fun to see how your photo would devlop but I still prefer digital and the X-T1 brings me what I want in automation but still retains full control over what I want.

the XF23 has a much better image quality than the XF27, or at least i notice such a difference. the XF23 (35mm equivalent) is my all-time favourite field of view for everything especially the streets. anything past the 35mm fov is too tight for me. i'm not fond of the 50mm/standard fov for streets/docu. i prefer capturing more of the entire scene especially when i tend to be up closer to people where a wider angle helps. and i can always crop if i need to. though i love the image quality of the XF23, the size is all wrong. and though i love the size of teh XF27, the fov is too tight for my tastes and is kind awkward for me - it's like.. either be wider or be a 50mm/standard already. so, i'd have to choose the XF18. it's pancake enough even with an aperture ring, though i'd prefer it were a dof scale.
 
something i wish Fuji would do is bring us a street photography line of lenses that are small (dof scale, please) even if it means being a bit slower.

Budget wise, I will also advise the X-Pro1 or if you can wait a bit for the X-70 that will be released later this year.
 
From the little time I had it in my hands, the X-Pro1 is a camera that makes you slow down, taking the time to compose your shot and think a bit about your light. 
 
The oldie look has is flavorful eye candy and the camera handling is rather nice.
 
The AF is indeed slower than the X-T1 from before the FW 4.0 update even when using fast lens like the 35mm.
 
Although I really disliked the View Finder, it's not going enough in one direction or too much in the other, I prefer either full OVF or EVF, the middle ground thing didn't worked for me.

There are street photographers that shoot in 35 and even 50.  You going to go tell them that they aren't street photographers?  All the street photographers out there making a living with the X100 series, that aren't street photographers because they aren't shooting the right focal length.
 
I don't understand the need to feel that you aren't shooting street if you aren't shooting wider than 35.  That's a ridiculous and asinine statement if I've ever heard one.
 
Street is subject, not focal length.

Don't forget that until the end of July you can get cash back for your XF lenses, depending on where you are living, the deal could be quite good.
 
Second point, the XF lenses are good enough to be reliably purchased second handed, evilBay have them pop up on semi regular basis, just need to be on the look-out. I think there was a great deal for one from CameraLand not so long ago.

Tons of informations given does not equal real experience. There's a dedicated Facebook group for wedding photography with Fujis. I'm glad to be a Fuji photographer especially for doing wedding photography. I used many different DSLR-systems in the past and all options have their strenghts and weaknesses. The Fuji system plays straight into my hands, as I hate to be flashy and obstrusive. The AF is absolutely sufficient to create a wonderful wedding coverage and I promise you that you will get shots that you wouldn't ever had gotten when using a loud and bulky DSLR
 
My only gripe would be the low-light capability (speaking of high-iso), which I guess is gonna be overhauled with the next generation of cameras.

You are correct, the macro icon is gone, it's now just part of the lense minimum focus distance. The biggest drawback is that you need to kind of remember how close you can focus with your lenses now, the 56mm could be the real annoying one with it's 70 cm distance.

Agree with Dis.  I have shot weddings for years with Nikon but now shoot 50% X-T1 and 50% Nikon D610.  Haven't fully migrated due to video requirements and $$ to swap all of my fast glass.  I expect next year I'll be 100% Fuji.
 
LARGE learning curve coming from SLR to Fuji X-T1.  Very different cameras.  I shot with my X-T1 a fair bit before taking it to my first wedding.  It's focusing was quite good, not as strong as my previous D3s ... but good enough.  I knew from others that had switched to it for weddings that the common theme others were saying was "it forces you to slow down".  That was exactly true and I knew that going into my first wedding with it on my hip.  For very rushed photojournalistic style of shooting (a small part of my wedding day), it can be a bit slow to change settings (when shooting manual which I mostly do), but other than that ... it has been a pretty good experience once the learning curve is behind you.

I have access to both a D3S with mostly primes lenses (35mm F1.8 and 50mm F1.8 among others) and a D800 with 24-70mm F2.8 and while the X-T1 with new upgrade is certainly good, it still can't compete against those 2 old monsters DSLR, specially the D800 with 24-70mm, that body lens combo is just insanly fast, you hardly need to do any half press for the focus to lock on.
 
Now, the closest competitor I have in house is my lil' Nikon1 AW1 with almost all lenses aside the 10-100mm and 70-300mm. 
In good light condition, the AW1 is really close of the D3S in term of focusing speed, we have to leave it to Nikon, they are awesomely good on the AF for their bodies.
 
So how does it match up ? Well, my AW1 with the 18.5mm F1.8 (50mm eq.) against my 35mm F1.4 on X-T1, the AW1 wins up with a good margin in good light condition, the update did good on the body but the lens could really use some update(s ?), but as soon as we start hitting the low light and the ISO shoots up, the X-T1 is catching up really good, around 3200 ISO the AW1 pretty much lost the battle, it can still grab a lock but with a bit more hunting and IQ goes down the drain.
 
In overall, the 35mm F1.4 is a really pretty lens, but it does shows its age, I could be tempted by the 35mm F2 WR that is going to be released end of this year but I love the bokeh and "spirit" of this 35mm too much to just replace it because it's not as fast other 50mm equivalent.
 
While I do not own a Sony A6000, I guess that depending on the lens, the X-T1 could be up to par with it, give or take 10-15% for error margin.
 
   
Don't use the AF-C on static subjects, the AF-C is expecting to have a moving subject, if everything is static, it tries to compensate for something that doesn't move.

If you're shooting a wedding, don't take any risks. Stick with a DSLR. I've shot in tiny, sticky-floored and very dark clubs with Fuji cameras, but it was by no means easy or fast and the X-T10 and X-T1 4.0 isn't proving any better. The improved low light AF performance isn't really for 'low light', it's more for 'medium light'. It still hunts, it's still slow, it still misses.

I'm not saying it is utterly impossible to shoot a wedding with Fuji cameras, but between the dodgy focus and the battery life, I simply would not risk a job like a wedding, which you cannot possibly re-shoot, on a Fuji camera, or any other mirrorless for that matter. In another 5-10 years, maybe. Right now, it would just be completely irresponsible to take that kind of risk with peoples' one and only big day. DSLR works perfectly for weddings, you know it works perfectly for weddings, you should only be using what absolutely, definitely, 100% works.