frankinfuji

Japanese couple in traditional costume.  X100S

As long as there is no digital OM4Ti - i had to choose Fuji-X.
The XF56 on my X-E1 a nightmare (focussing) - OK on my X-E2.
I learned a lot in last month about camera systems IMHO:
1- buy optics & find a camera that fits to it (Sonys A-Series is very nice - but what about optics, Contax the same but the other way around ...)
2- cure GAS and talk about pictures not gear
3- get used to look & see and not to argue
4- strongest argument for the digital workflow is neither speed nor price - but sensor sensitivity
 
chears
Tilman

X-Pro1
35 mm f2
 
KnockRock by 660 Mattie, on Flickr

Playing around with the 27mm and monochrome mode (X-T1 SOOC JPEG)
 

X-T2 + 56
 
DSCF4064 by Kirill Sokolov, on Flickr

Hey everyone! This is my first post here... Wow - some truly inspiring images have been shared here. Here's my two cents...
 
X-T2 & 56mm 1.2
 
 

 

 

 

 

 
And a couple with a X-T1 and 56mm
 

 

 
 
SaveSave

x
 
I'm not going to quote previous replies as CBA to get into an argument with people.
 
Welcome to Fuji.
 
Your zoom choices are good for general photography, if I didn't own a prime lens and was going to buy 1 only it would be the XF 35 F/1.4 Every time
 
Personally I ONLY shoot full manual exposure (with the only exception being, well, never) the adjustments to Aperture, Shutter Speed and ISO can be made in seconds and in reality, you normally only ever have to quickly adjust one of the 3, which depends on what you are taking pictures of.
 
Is saving a second of my time shooting in shutter priority worth sacrificing creative control for, never for me, I can't speak for others.
is a fast F/1.4 worth the extra cost? yes in my opinion if you do not own anything that fast.
 
It is 3 stops of light better than an F/4 lens, depending on what you are photographing depends what difference that will make, and what limitations you are prepared to put up with.
 
An F/1.4 lens can shoot at F/4, an F/4 lens can never shoot at a wider aperture.
 
No lens is at its sharpest wide open, but its sometimes better being able to shoot a fast lens wide open than a slower lens wide open and with a high ISO/Slow shutter speed.
 
Aperture @ F/1.4 Shutter Speed @ 1/60 ISO @ 800 = Aperture @ F/4 Shutter speed @ 1/60 ISO @ 6400
Personally I'd much rather have an image shot at F/1.4 than an image shot at ISO 6400
 
People will say but if a lens has OIS you can hand hold at a slower shutter speed, which is true, but OIS can not stop Motion Blur (so as long as you only take photographs of static objects OIS is great) 
 
The fast lens provides you with a shallow DOF option.
 
The other option you have if it's about indoor photos in low light is to use a flash.
 
For kids or anything that moves personally I'd rather have the flexibility of a fast 1.4 lens, the choice between 23 and 35 only you can make, at a push around the house you may find the 35mm a bit tight, I'd recommend you to set your 18-135 to both focal lengths to decide between them.
 
Here is a photograph I took at dusk with the 35mm F/1.4 @ F/1.4, SS 1/60, ISO 200 (if I had to shoot at F/4 this photograph would not have been possible, the ISO would have to have been pushed higher, and I don't like noise, and the background would be more in focus than i wanted)



 

 
 
tldr
 
The faster the aperture of a lens the more creative control you have over your art

Some shots during a wedding I did last year. XT1 + 90mm 
 
 

Yes, if the lenses were as good then I would definitely switch-the lack of ibis and touch screen on the flagship xt2 is an issue. The lackluster face detect is also still an issue and that isFuj beyond comprehension. The naysayer fanboys suggest back button or manual focus to which I respond: that's not the purpose of face detection now is it? There's no perfect camera but there is market competition and Fuji cannot rest on its laurels. Instead, Fuji needs to keep pace with competition.

I reckon it's part evolution and part market segmentation.
 
X-Pro 2 design probably started well before X-T2, and USB charging and 4k were not part of the brief. When working on development of the X-T2 the team added new features to the spec based on a review of competition.
 
But there's also the marketing strategy to aim the cameras at different perceived market segments, and some marketing genius thinks that a rangefinder style body should not have an articulating screen and that a dslr style body needs a mock prism housing.
 
I wish Fuji would just make the best body they can, and ignore fashion.

There's been many threads about faults with various Fuji cameras, and many queries where people have issues created by illogical menu options. There's also some issues with peeling rubber coatings, warped doors, hot batteries and worn paint finishes, plus the regular discussions on how to encourage our cameras to focus on anything that moves - yet we all stick with Fuji. Is that because we like our favourite lenses so much, we tolerate the unreliable bodies?
 
Yesterday evening was a good example, my X-E2 would not work properly with the flash (shutter release stopped responding, then it over exposed the shots), and Face Detection resulted in 50% of the shots with background in perfect focus. But after removing the flasgun, disabling face detection and switching to the 35mm prime, I got a shot that was just what I wanted.
 
Are other systems as problematic?
 
If it were not for your favourite Fuji lenses, would you stick with Fuji bodies?
 

Personally I have never had any mechanical issues with Fuji bodies, but I do agree with the notion that the lenses are the things that make Fuji so appealing - none of the bodies are as good as I'd like them to be. If there was a smaller X-Pro2 with IBIS I'd think it was just about as good as it could be. Interestingly enough Sony have the opposite problem in that they have great cameras but not nearly enough lenses and their approach to lenses seems a bit hit and miss to me.

I can't say that I have any issues with my Fujifilm camera bodies, but my primary reason for my switch to Fuji where the lenses. Continuous autofocus was actually so bad that I bought a Nikon D7200 just for the sake of shooting actions. With the X-T2 things have improved, but not to the extent that it can replace my Nikon with the long telephoto lenses. Except for autofocus I love the gears and I don't think I will change it in the nearest future. However there are a few things I would love to see in a coming camera like built in image stabilisation and a real implementation of back focus (AF-ON). Improved battery life is also on my wish list.
 
So yes, I can live with the camera bodies, because no one else have a lens collection that can beat Fuji.

Yes.  I really like the lenses - I have several primes - they tend to be a little bit large and heavy, but that's an OK trade off for me.  I haven't had any physical problems with bodies (X-T10, X-E2, X100S, X100T) but I think the way Fuji approaches body firmware is just nonsense.  They release bodies with unfinished firmware, and then try to spin the deficiencies positive with the "kaizen love" silliness.  It took what - almost 2 years? - for the XE-2 upgrade.  Which is why I finally got the X-T10 so I could have decent focusing.  The X100T never did get that upgrade.  I put it back in the box quite a while ago, and there it sits.  There is no excuse for this, all three of these bodies have the same internals related to these functions.
 
I pre-ordered an X-T20, although I would rather have an X-E3 with that body form, but the future of the X-E3 is unknown other than wishful rumors.  I am sure I will love the X-T20, especially with my favorite 14mm and 90mm lenses.  But I am not sure how much I will actually end up using it, since in the meantime I have recently gotten a Canon M5 kit with the 18-150 lens.  This is a terrific setup, and the ability to segment the touch screen and use it with the EVF without nose-focusing is brilliant.  I also got the EF lens adapter and still have a bunch of Canon L lenses if I want to use those.  This setup cost about the same as an X-T2 or X-Pro2 body alone.  An X-E2 sits with the 14mm lens on it, for when I need something wider than the Canon 18mm, but that's about it for Fuji at this point.  When the X-T20 arrives, it will probably replace the X-E2 in the sit-with-14mm on it role.

Been taking pictures for the last 40 years, I went through my share of bodies from different makers Konica, Pentax, Nikon for the last 16 years and I left completely for Fuji 2 years ago when I decided that I was more fighting against Nikon's engineers rather than concentrating on light, composition and subject. Fuji let's me quickly override what the engineers have decided : it collaborates with me rather than fighting with me and that is a huge bonus. 
 
I have had my share of problems with the different brands of both bodies and lenses, sometimes Nikon made a blunder on new bodies/lens/flash and never stepped up to acknowledge the facts (which Fuji did).
 
All in all so far I have had far less issues with Fuji products than with any other brands, which is quite good considering that the more electronics is put inside these beasts the more trouble you're going to get with hardware and software. 
 
And more importantly  the quality of the image I get from the combination of Fuji bodies and lenses pleases me a lot, so what's not to like ?

I just went through the process of choosing between the two (goodbye Canon). The scale tipped on control issues - Sony menus versus Fuji knobs. I made this decision after months of frustration with, for example, my new car's information centre; navigation and operation decisions and entertainment in a single box that encourage me to take my eyes off the road. My old radio was much better. I resent the idea that I should be trained to use their computer; they are too stupid to design a flexible system that mimics what we had (hello Mazda - only once). If the interface is non-intuitive then it was designed by someone ignorant of history and with more arrogance than common sense. I'm not giving my money to anyone who doesn't respect where I come from. Take your tattoos and social media and ignore someone else. And take your menu trees with you.

I shoot with both (X-T10 and A7r first gen).
 
I toyed with the idea of switching completely to Fuji for quite a bit (you can read about it on my blog, where I published as well a shootout between the 16Mp X-T10 and the 36Mp A7r using the same, adapted, lenses).
 
http://www.addicted2light.com/2016/07/29/giving-the-boot-to-sony-a7r-vs-fuji-x-t10/
 
But in the end, at least for now, I kept using both.
 
The real advantage of the Sony sensor is not necessarily its size, unless of course you want the shallowest possible depth of field. What keeps the Sony in my bag, its several annoying quirks notwithstanding, is the fantastic ability to push the shadows with (@ 50 Iso) essentially no noise at all.
 
This alone opens your shooting envelope quite a bit. That said, in many circumstances you could do the same with the Fuji just using HDR.
 
And while it's true that taking multiple shots is not always feasible, the same goes for the Sony (or other full frame bodies) when you start taking into account that in order to have extended depth of field quite often just stopping down it isn't gonna cut it, and you will have to resort to focus staking.
 
For comparison, the only three really annoying "features" I've found with Fuji are: the sensor reflections when shooting with the sun in the pictures (not always, but frequent enough to be annoying); the lack of an extended eyepiece for the X-T10; and the HDR bracketing limited to a measly +1 -1 stops.
 
If I were to start from scratch, though, I'd definitely go the Fuji route.

Evening folks,
 
My name is Marlon Correa and I'm a new Fuji X shooter. Recently I purchased a X-Pro2 and a 23mm f2.
I've been heavily involved in my local IG scene and this prompted me to create a Fuji X DC group for the DC Metro area.
The purpose of the group is for local Fuji photogs to share their work, tips, gear advice, and possibly join meets in the future.
 
I welcome all DC, Maryland, Virginia shooters in this forum to join both our Facebook page and IG accounts.
 
Here are the links.
 
FB:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1354517821245736/
 
IG:
https://www.instagram.com/fujixdc/
 
Oh, and I look forward to meeting others here.
 
Thank you,
Marlon Correa

Portraits of Sinem with my X100T in Hamburg:
 

Sinem #3 / Hamburg by Sebastian Warneke, auf Flickr
 

Sinem #2 / Hamburg by Sebastian Warneke, auf Flickr
 

Sinem #1 / Hamburg by Sebastian Warneke, auf Flickr
 
In-camera double exposure with X100T + TCL:
 

Vy #4 / Hamburg by Sebastian Warneke, auf Flickr

I'd love the excuse for the 56mm f1.2 but having just bought the XT1, 35mm f2 and 18mm f2 I don't think the accountant (the Mrs!) would release the funds!

Thanks for the replies. I will try with some limits and see what the difference is
 
I looked at the 35mm f1.4 but the price I paid for the f2 was too good to miss.

Yes - same thoughts from me.  The key is the minimum shutter speed setting for the Auto ISO.  I usually use 1/60 with the 35mm lens for slow moving subjects - like a steady portrait session or static objects, but raise to 1/100 for general shots.  I set either max ISO 3200 if I want high quality portraits, or 6400 for general shots (but this will risk the excess skin smoothing if you shoot jpegs).
 
Also - but it's too late now - the 35 f1.4 has a low light advantage over the f2.

Fujifilm X-T2 + Fujinon 56/1.2
 
DSCF7032 by Kirill Sokolov, on Flickr
 
DSCF7057 by Kirill Sokolov, on Flickr
 
Fujifilm X-T2 + Fujinon 23/1.4
DSCF7211 by Kirill Sokolov, on Flickr

I printed this out on a 70cm x 50cm canvas (27 x 20 inches I think?).
Looks terrific. Best part of all, I didn't do any editing what so ever on the digital file. Straight out of cam.
Canvas is expensive though!
 

 
 

Here's my favorite setup. I have found, after trying out most bag versions over the years, that there is no perfect setup. It's not even fair to try. The best we can hope for is a bag that helps us feel some relief as we manage a portfolio of tradeoffs around what we want and what we need. it helps if it has some style to it, at least for professional work that requires moving in an out of a variety of offices and meetings over a week.
 
The best quality bags I've found are ThinkTank and Ona. Others are good, too, but even some of the really expensive bags out there have frustrating inserts, or stiffness in the bag, that makes them hard to work out of. For those who use their bags to transport their equipment from one table top to another, I think there is a larger selection of bags that check most of the boxes you need. But if you're going to be working out of a bag for longer stretches, there are just a lot fewer options where the tradeoffs don't become overwhelming pretty fast.
 
I don't carry around a bunch of loose lenses. I almost never change them when shooting out of a walking bag, and I've found that the best way to get the benefit of multiple lenses is by keeping them mounted on multiple bodies. For all my professional work, I use two XT2 bodies (XT1 before that) and then I have a "third body" for a third lens, or that I use in terrible weather (never want to chance it with the main bodies if I can avoid it). My third body, right now, is an XT1 that also serves as a very small "cocktail camera" when I need it to be as unintrusive as possible.
 
I keep the 23mm on a body almost always, and then either the 56mm or the 90mm fuji lenses on the other. If it's during the day, I generally have the 90mm on it as it's a great tradeoff for size against the 135mm equivalent reach. I found I'd be called in to shoot a protest or a fire scene or etc, and I'd want to keep some distance. With fires, you never know the fumes present in the smoke. The three fuji bodies don't get too heavy for me, but I could never do this when I had the big DSLR rig going.
 
My daily carry setup is one of two Ona bags. I have the Bowery in canvas (leather does start to get too heavy with that bag) for days when I need all three bodies on me, plus a laptop or tablet. And when I only need one or two bodies and no computer, I use a leather bowery bag.
 
I find both bags to be outstanding in terms of both function and style. I can wear them with a tux or with jeans--in a boardroom or on a loading dock--and never have to think about it. All in all, I love this setup and it is, by far, the most productive set up I've worked with in my career. I can wear either of these bags, loaded with my equipment, all day long with only minor complaints about strain after even a long day of constant wear. I love the large pockets on the front of the ONA bags--they're among my favorite "front pockets" in the business. I only wish they had some sort of locking mechanism for slightly improved security when traveling.
 
Cell phone pics, but you get the idea.
 

 

 

 

 

 
Edited for spelling.