darknj

I would love to have a resurrection of the Fuji Xpan camera, I had a nice time shooting with it last time was I in Hong-Kong.

Like what they said above me.
 
There is only 2 seasons in Thailand, hot and hotter. 
 
If you are not used to that kind of weather, I would advise you to pack only clothing to go there and to come back, buy the rest of your clothes in local shops. They will be a lot more breathable and dry a lot faster with the sweat.
 
Drop the Nissin and tripod, unless you really plan on using them for the architectural shots.

1 to 3 sec should be ok but if you really want that silky smooth, you will need at least a 10 stop filter. If you do plan on getting one of them, please do consider your needs. 10 stops ND filters are expensive for a very good reasons, the color shifts from low quality filters can be very annoying to fix.
 
On the scales of easily fixing in post production, blue is about the easiest to fix, green is getting annoying and if you see purple, then you are in very deep trouble. The more uniform the color shift the easier it is too.
 
A good filter is about 160$ for a 10 stop from Lee, Singh-Ray, or any well known brands for ND filters.
 
Again, do make sure you really want to do long exposure as part of your photography, not just something to try out. For fun, do it on night time and just make long exposure on a street with cars that passes by on regular basis.
 
An example of what I did on the city a bit before new-year over a bridge, ISO 200, 25 sec @F16, no filters, there wasn't a need for that since it was fully dark:
 

XF 18-135 !
 
My most favorite lens when I am unsure for what to pack
 
But on your case, I would rather use just the X100T and the converters, that should good enough.

Just to be certain, are you using the regular eye cup or the long one ?
 
The default one that comes with the X-T1 has a nasty habit of moving around and can sit in front of the eye sensor, which makes your camera thinks your eye is over there.
It happened to me a couple of times before I noticed it and pushed the eye cup into the socket and kinda sorted out the issue.

Considering the rumored upward price cost of the X-Pro2, I can't say it's a bad decision :]

The specifications of the X-Pro 2 sound exceptional - pretty much everything any of us have asked for. I'm a tiny bit disappointed in the price, even knowing it was going to be expensive, I had hoped for around $1500, maybe $1600. Close to $2000 is territory no standard APS-C camera has inhabited in years, more expensive than the X-Pro 1 at launch, and we really haven't seen a relatively broad market  APS-C model that expensive since the early days of the D300 in 2007 (I suspect the Canon 7D was in the same range at launch), although Nikon is now trying to get $2000 for the new D500. Even at $1500, the X-Pro 2 would have been among the most expensive APS-C cameras around (other than Leica and the Hasselblad-rebadged Sonys). At $1799-$1899, it will be well above anything else except the D500 and a few real oddities.
 
Looking at non-full frame interchangeable lens cameras above $1000 (there is no question the X-Pro 2 was going to be well above $1000), and ignoring Leica and Hasselblad, there are only a few models presently on the market. The only models above $1500 are the not yet available D500, astronomical variants of cameras that are otherwise less expensive, and the Samsung NX1 and Sigma SD1, both of which have lens mounts so odd that you never see them. I teach photography at the college level (I only have time to post consistently because I'm both on semester break and have had lousy shooting weather), and have been to PhotoPlus and various other events over the years where people wear every imaginable camera, including Phase One systems. I have NEVER seen a Sigma SLR "in the wild" and the only Samsung NX camera I've ever seen in use is one of the very low end models a student brought to class a few years ago. I suspect that Leica outsells both Samsung and Sigma interchangeable lens cameras handily (at least in the US - the Samsungs may be more common in Asia), and they may actually be less common than medium format systems or astronomical variants of common cameras, given that I occasionally see Leicas and medium format systems at workshops or in use at events. I think that everything currently available above $1500 (other than full-frame, of course) can be dismissed as extremely limited market oddities pretty easily.
 
Between $1000 and $1500, we run into a few relatively common cameras, although they all turn up under $1000 in bundles from time to time. There are two common APS-C cameras, two high-end Micro 4/3 models, and the questionable case of the Canon 7D mkII, which is consistently right around $1000 after rebate, and generally includes a free printer. The two APS-C models are Nikon's D7200 and Fuji's own X-T1, both of which turn up in $1500 bundles with upper-end travel zooms that sell for $500 or more, although it's rare to find the bodies for $999 alone. The Panasonic GH4 and Olympus E-M1 also crack the $1000 barrier, although the GH4 is really a video camera more than anything.
 
The other question that affects how  reasonable Fuji's price looks is Sony's A6100, which may have a 36 MP sensor. Sony's almost certainly going to aim over $1000, and one rumor said it might even be in X-Pro 2 territory. I find Sony getting over $1500 for an APS-C camera hard to fathom, almost no matter what the sensor is. They have too few decent lenses (apart from a few FF lenses that will be odd focal lengths on APS-C, many of them slow, bulky or expensive (or more than one of the above)), and they face too much competition from their own full-frame bodies, with the original A7 around $1000, and the A7II, A7r and A7s all clustered between $1500 and $1900. Sony has never built a truly pro-quality APS-C body, and even the original A7 series are fragile by the standards of expensive APS-C bodies (D7200 class build quality for sure, but NOT built and sealed like an E-M1 or even an X-T1).
 
I'm guessing they'll aim right around the launch price of the NEX-7 ($1199), and getting more would require a really nice body (probably weathersealed with IBIS) AND a real commitment to top-end APS-C lenses. While I'd be unsurprised to see IBIS, I'd be a bit surprised by real weathersealing, and pretty shocked to see the lenses, with Sony's history of switching mounts and their current emphasis on FE lenses.They may aim for $1399 or even $1499, especially if it has IBIS and weathersealing, but I suspect they won't sell very many, due to lens availability. If the Sony is a "sensor in a box" with a lousy kit lens, relatively poor controls and less than stellar build quality, it almost doesn't matter how good that sensor is (until Nikon gets their hands on it and throws it in a (possibly mirrorless) D7200 successor, or Pentax sticks it in a sub-$1000 DSLR with several very interesting features that nobody has lenses for). On the other hand, if the sensor is spectacular AND Sony gets their act together on the body and lenses, it may put a lot of pressure on Fuji.
 
Nikon's reasoning for asking $2000 for the D500 comes down to speed, high ISOs and durability. The D500 has a brand-new AF system that is supposed to blow anything else (except the D5) out of the water, calibrated ISOs as high as 51,200 (with a HI-range capability over "1.5 million"), 10 FPS, and is supposed to be built to the standards of the D810, which would be superior to any crop sensor camera currently manufactured with the possible exception of the E-M1. The speed-optimized sensor may or may not deliver optimum image quality at lower ISOs, and I'd be very surprised if it was as good as the X-Pro 2 below ISO 3200 or 6400. They are so confident in the appeal of the speed and durability for a specific market that they have actually priced the D500 above a couple of their own full-frame bodies.
 
Can Fuji really get $1800 or more for the X-Pro 2 with this competition (and a lot of nice cameras at or below $1000)? I think so, but it has to be pretty close to perfect at what it is (and it may well be). It is a completely different, even opposite camera from the D500, although I hope for build quality of a true pro standard, as claimed for the D500 - at a price this high, it should be REALLY beautifully and ruggedly built, with excellent sealing. Its real competitors are NOT other APS-C cameras at all, but the various ~24 MP full-frame bodies from Sony, Nikon and Canon, which are clustered right around its price. The X-Pro 2 will actually be more significantly expensive than the original A7, D610 and EOS 6D, directly competitive with the A7II and D750, and somewhat cheaper than the aging 5D mkIII.  The 24 MP Sony full-frame sensor (as used by all of these bodies except the Canons) is really excellent, but the APS-C sensor assisted by X-Trans may give it a run for its money, and needs to to justify the price. It needs to be right in there in terms of image quality with 24 MP full frame, and only a little bit behind the generally more expensive high-pixel full-frame bodies in overall IQ - no, a 24 MP sensor isn't going to compete with the 42 MP A7rII sensor, but it needs to make truly top quality 24x36" prints, leaving the differences to serious pixel-peepers and owners of 44" printers!
 
I think Fuji has a significant lens advantage over Sony, and even Canon and Nikon are arguable (the very best Canon and Nikon full-frame lenses are as good as most of the Fujinons, but they are much heavier, bulkier and costlier, while the lenses of comparable price and weight are not as good). A 24 MP full-frame body is an unlikely pairing with the very exotic lenses where Fuji can't compete - most of the big telephotos will either end up on an ultra-high pixel count body, a high-speed body, or perhaps an APS-C body for extended reach (the D500 will probably be popular for big glass). The X-Pro 2 will be much smaller and lighter than a full-frame Canon or Nikon with lenses of comparable quality, and even than an A7 or A7II  except with very carefully selected lenses.
 
The choice of hybrid "rangefinder", pure EVF or SLR is up to the individual photographer, but that hybrid finder needs to be excellent in both modes, because the viewfinders on the competition are close to the best in the business. Similarly, the autofocus and metering need to be truly superb, because the X-Pro 2 is competing with the very best.
 
Especially with the quality of the lens range, the X-Pro 2 has a good chance of justifying its audacious price tag, but everything needs to work just right to get it in that rarefied company. Fuji has set themselves a tough target by pricing the X-Pro 2 well above all other crop-sensor cameras except the superfast D500, and right in the middle of the current range of 24 mp full-frame bodies. They are really saying "compare our crop sensor camera to an A7II or a D750, and we think you'll prefer the experience, image quality and build quality" - a tough, but possible assignment.

After 2 weeks of testing it, I found my new daily drive messenger bag.
 
Without too much surprise the Peak Design Everyday Messenger bag just does it for me. I can take my X-T1 with 27, 35, 60 and 18-135 lenses with any of them on the camera and still have the top half the bag mostly empty to put more stuff inside.
 
The Field Pouch that goes with it is really nicely done too, if you don't fill it too much, it can cozily sits on the front zipper pocket.
 
Also have a back zipper for laptop and another smaller pocket for up to 10" tablet.
 
So far, my best daily bag
 
[Edit after some super rainy days testing]
 
Well, it works really well, I have been covered in rainy weather for the last week and nothing inside the bag got any kind of wetness due to the rain. I had to walk home the other day and with the 20 mins of walking beneath heavy rain, my gear is still pristine. This bag earned my trust as my daily drive bag.
 
Small issues, if you fill it up there are opening on the sides, which can quite wide open and let some water in, but that aside, the bag is quite good for a messenger style.

Adorama told me that they didn't sell a single unit in 2015.

Sheesh... That sounds quite bad for a lens if most of the known shops are not willing to spend the time to even try to sell it...

Alright, you are the photographer who has everything and you like to shoot wildlife, your wife wants to buy you some new gadget what could she buy you?
 
 
 
......... This!
 

 
Is the camera water-resistant?

well, it’s never nice to see something like that happen but I couldn’t help thinking : “ I told you so!"

I use both Blackrapid and Peakdesign's slide.
 
There are pro and cons on each side:
 
- I have had failure with Blackrapid a couple of time, the hook point can mis lock and make you think your camera is attached while it is not; visual verification is mandatory if you then to hook and un-hook your system on regular basis during the event.
- That being said, the Blackrapid is really super easy to work with, except when I need to take really low or really high reach or extend the camera past the hanging point.
 
- Peakdesign slide feels more steady, after all if it is around your neck, or shoulder you feel it, the hook points are solid and they can be annoying to remove, which is good for me.
- But it's not as fast as the Blackrapid, you need to fiddle a bit too much to get the camera back into view to snap at something that is unexpected. Or you need to leave your camera hanging at your neck, which I really hate, I rather have it on shoulder and the camera on the side or back than in front of me on my chest.
 
Another point, if you need to use tripods, Peakdesign might be better as it doesn't need to use the bottom screwing slot, which allows easy camera transport between spots.
 
In general, if I travel only with just the camera I will take the Peakdesign Slide and have it on shortest distance and keep the camera on the back, if I have a camera bag with me and need to fiddle a lot with lower/higher shots and swap lenses, I will use the Blackrapid as I would have more mobility with it and still keep the camera hanging against my hip when not needed.
 
Sidenote, I have medium grip on my X-T1 so the plate is not going to block the battery door.

A real pro level flash for Fuji is still rather elusive, I do not think any of us could give you a concrete answer on that part.
 
Although there are viable alternative, if TTL is no needed. Yongnuo is rather nice on a X-T1 and works just as good as any manual flash and cost a fraction of the price of the SB800 or SB900 from Nikon.
 
Nissin i40 seems like a solid second flash if you need one. TTL seems to be working with the Fuji system, but it has some clunky dials and the joints can be a bit loose, but it does have the advantage of delivery as much light as much larger flash and cost moderately nice.

Three words: This lens sucks!

That's partially true, I still have an old Nikon D5000 in the house and anything above ISO 800 on the camera is just a smudge of pixels, which would happen a lot indoor. You would still need to pay decent money for something that would be able to hold ISO 3200 decently plus price of the lens, but you would get a better AF speed.
 
If I were to pick something for myself now, I would either go with the Nikon D5500 or the much older Nikon D300S but neither solution would be smaller than X-T1 plus 23mm lens.

I am a person of simple taste and needs   .
 
 
Mind you, I remember when I just bought my first X camera ( X-E1) discussing its purchase during the intermission at community band practice. There was a visitor who kept on telling me that he didn’t understand why would one need a camera to take pictures when a telephone ( he said, showing me his Iphone) would give all you ever need.
 
I told him that I owned a phone to phone, a photographic camera to shoot photographs (I don’t film), a digital recorder to record sounds and what I pretend to call music and a Tom-Tom to go round and about, because I like owning things that are made to perform a task.
 
He looked at me bewildered as if I came from Mars.
 
So, as much as I understand that a go-pro is the thing which most use to film and, dare I say, take pictures, I’d still use the proper thing for the proper task.
 
Maybe you’ve seen this but there were at least two inventors who invented some weird contraptions to transform, one, the Iphone into a “ camera” ( when you can buy a camera to this better and with a smaller dimension) and the other a box which transforms the go pro into a “ mirrorless” look-alike.
 
Weird!
 

Perhaps since I am not a gamer I wasn’t prepared to this. 
 
Perhaps I am just old fashioned and not used to these things.
 
I had to think of this joke.
 
Two thieves decide to go stealing some fruit in an orchard at night time. The farmer owner of the orchard has put there his donkey there to protect the fruit but they don’t know it and can’t see it because it’s pitch black. So they make a hole in the wall surrounding the orchard and as the first thieve peeps through the hole the donkey kicks him in the face. 
 
He retracts with the hands on his face, the other thieve asks : “ What is it?Why don’t you go in? “ and the first thieve answers : “ No, you go in first, I have to laugh about all of this! “
 
 
One thing is for sure, next time, I’ll let others go in first.

Bah... Can't be worse than what Nikon did with the D600 and its oily/dusty sensor.
 
A friend of mine who went for a D600 last year, after Nikon's announcement in March noticed the issue during a trip in the US, he wasn't aware of the problem to begin with and just went to get the camera changed in a local Nikon shop, he was refused service from Nikon US and again back in Belgium. I had to use my Gold NPS status to push things around and get the camera fixed.
 
As long as there are expectations and deadline, companies will push to get there even if it means rushing things. The video game industry is a perfect exemple of rushed products by release date and slowly fix them for the next 6 months or so.
 
So yes, they messed up but still came out clean about it and offered a way to correct that in a temporary way before offering a real fix later on. Not really pretty sign, but still a lot better than most of the manufacturers out here.

Make sure that you really need the bag, I got mine a decade ago because I was still lugging around DSLR and truckload of glass along it and the bag HAD to be heavy duty.
The Billingham cost a fortune if purchased brand new, it's almost outrageous. Then again, my bag is still in good shape, you certainly can see the uses and mileage it got from the years but still a trooper bag and takes in whatever you take it out for.
 
Now I am slowly retiring the bag because my gear got smaller and lighter, I don't need that much gear with me, nor is it heavy. So yes, the bag is now too large for my needs and serve as container bag for gear that is not used on regular basis (essentially anything non Nikon 1 nor Fuji X).
 
I know that a one point it was almost a bragging to own such a brand bag, not the Hadley line but the 5 Series, it meant that you were serious about your gear. Now, it still kind of prestige but almost snobish to have one when your gear got a lot smaller/lighter.
 
Long story short, I can not recommend those bags enough, just make sure you really need it, not just want one for the heck of it. 

The two camera work in very different ways.
 
The X-T1 would feel more "nervous" almost eager to take picture, the X-Pro1 feels more calm and steadier. At least that's the feeling I got when I tried both cameras.
 
Unlike Paul, I wasn't really convinced by the X-Pro1 hybrid view finder, the part OVF and EVF didn't really worked for me. It is good to have the option to use either when needed but, I don't know, it felt weird when I tested it out.
I guess I like my view finders to be either full OVF or full EVF, not a cross of both.
 
One thing that was not mentioned, if I missed it, my apologies, but do be careful with long lenses or lenses with long lens hood, it can get into your OVF, or so I have been told.
Since I only had the 35mm to test the X-Pro1 I can not say for certain if that is indeed the case or not nor how bad it is, but reports does exist about it.
 
That aside:
 
- Same sensor.
- Older CPU to process the image.
- Some physical differences.
 
In the end, nothing really major nor earthshaking. It still takes pictures and like so many people before me, it's the spongy thingy that 10 cm behind the view finder that makes the differences.

Hardly a diversity contest or a matter of religious affiliation (but I admit that it looks like that) but simply some self declared optical orthodox folks not wanting to see that lenses which weren’t 1:1 have been designed as macro at least from the ’50 of last century onwards.
 
In this tradition the Fuji 60mm is a macro lens.
 
Whilst I have no problem to accept that there are ALSO macro lenses with a reproduction ratio of 1:1, there are those who declare themselves the defenders of optical orthodoxy and cling to an absolute but arbitrary definition, even after have been given many examples of the contrary. 
 
I have a name for this movement.
 
Optical radical integralists.    have a happy new year, 1:1 ( and I don’t mean a lens)

As I have shown, a lot of lenses were produced by lens makers ( not internet commentators, but actual lens makers) such as nikon, pentax, zeiss,olympus, and were given the predicate macro and micro but didn’t get to 1:1 reproduction ratio.
 
I suppose that one might agree that lens makers know a few things more about macro lenses than dictionaries compilers whose task is to register the use of language ( I have been studying languages & linguistics and I am aware of how a dictionary is compiled)  but don’t make the things called macro and haven’t given them their name.
 
So, if a language myth takes a foothold a dictionary will report it as it is used, even badly. 
 
However the lens makers have a different opinion on these terms.
 
Some define and have historically defined as macro and micro ( although micro, linguistically, should indicate that the reproduction ratio should be greater than life-size so with an actual magnification of the subject) many lenses which reproduce lifesize and sometimes less than that.
 
 
 
A substantial amount of them in this list is half size ( and actually there will be more if the would include some older lenses for example it lists the pentax 100mm f2.8 but not the earlier f4 ( which I own and use), the same is also true fro the early versions Tamron 90mm and Vivitar 90mm, also half size but not listed among these lenses below)
 
 
From Wikipedia (a partial list of lenses not including many with reproduction ratios lesser than 1:1, but nevertheless apt to show that there are several Macro lenses which didn’t get any furthere than 1:2  and some a lot less than that , such as the Schneider Makro or the Kern macro switar)
 
Lens focal length Reproduction Ratio Closest Focus Canon EF Compact f/2.5 50mm 1:2 (half life size) 6in.
Canon EF-S f/2.8 USM 60mm 1:1 (life size) 8in.
Canon MP-E f/2.8 1-5x 65mm 5:1 (life size) 7in.
Canon EF f/2.8 USM 100mm 1:1 (life size) 12in.
Canon EF f/2.8L IS USM 100mm 1:1 (life size) 12in.
Canon EF f/3.5L USM 180mm 1:1 (life size) 19in.
Fujifilm XF60mmF2.4 R Macro [16] 60mm 1:2 (half life size) 10.5in.
Nikon AF-S DX f/2.8G 40mm 1:1 (life size) 6.4in.
Nikon Micro-Nikkor f/2.8 55mm 1:2 (half life size) 10.8in.
Nikon AF Nikkor f/2.8D 60mm 1:1 (life size) 8.75in.
Nikon AF-S Nikkor f/2.8G ED 60mm 1:1 (life size) 6in.
Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor f/3.5G ED VR 85mm 1:1 (life size) 9in.
Nikon Micro-Nikkor f/2.8 105mm 1:2 (half life size) 16.08in.
Nikon AF-S VR Nikkor f/2.8G IF-ED 105mm 1:1 (life size) 12in.
Nikon AF Nikkor f/4D IF-ED 200mm 1:1 (life size) 20in.
Nikon PC-E Nikkor f/2.8D ED 45mm 1:2 (half life size) 9.9in.
Nikon PC-E Nikkor f/2.8D 85mm 1:2 (half life size) 15in.
Olympus Zuiko Macro f/2 90mm 1:2 (half life size) 15.7in.
Olympus Zuiko Macro f/2 50mm 1:2 (half life size) 9.6in.
Olympus Zuiko Macro f/3.5 50mm 1:2 (half life size) 9.1in.
Olympus ED-Zuiko Macro f/2 50mm 1:1 (35mm eqv. 2x life size) 9.5in.
Olympus m.Zuiko Macro f/2.8 60mm 1:2 (35mm eqv. life size) 7.5in.
Pentax DA 35mm f/2.8 Macro Limited 35mm 1:1 (life size) 5.4in.
Pentax D-FA 50mm f/2.8 Macro 50mm 1:1 (life size) 7.67in.
Pentax D-FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro WR 100mm 1:1 (life size) 9.9in.
Schneider Kreuznach PC-TS MAKRO-SYMMAR 4.5/90 HM[17] 90mm 1:4 (quarter life size) 22.8in. ( 1/4 size......!)
Sigma 50mm F2.8 EX DG Macro[18] 50mm 1:1 (life size) 5.3in.
Sigma 70mm F2.8 EX DG Macro[19] 70mm 1:1 (life size) 10.1in.
Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro[20] 105mm 1:1 (life size) 12.3in.
Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM APO Macro[21] 150mm 1:1 (life size) 15in.
Sigma APO Macro 180mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM[22] 180mm 1:1 (life size) 18.6in.
Sony DT 30mm f/2.8 Macro Lens 30mm 1:1 (life size) 4.8in.
Sony 50mm f/2.8 Macro Lens 50mm 1:1 (life size) 7.8in.
Sony 100mm f/2.8 Macro Lens 100mm 1:1 (life size) 14.4in.
Tamron SP 60mm f/2.0 Di II 1:1 Macro[23] 60mm 1:1 (life size) 9.1in.
Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di 1:1 Macro[24] 90mm 1:1 (life size) 11.4in.
Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro[25] 90mm 1:1 (life size) 11.8in. 
Tamron SP 180mm f/3.5 Di 1:1 Macro[26] 180mm 1:1 (life size) 18.5in.
Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/50[27] 50mm 1:2 (half life size) 9.6in.
Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100[28] 100mm 1:2 (half life size) 17.6in.
[29] [30] [31] [32]
 
To these I would certainly add the Alpa Kern Macro Switar with only 1:3 reproduction ratio, but, called macro, nonetheless.
Pentax 100mm f4 Macro ( half life size)
Micro Nikkor ( half life size)
 
 
 
What do they ( Kern, Pentax and Nikkon) know about lenses?

this seems to be the new official pencil at Reuters 
 

Keep it and put a tag on like with "I survived hell" or something akin to that