Phil

This is why I'd definitely get the silver for a second body. I love the X-T1 with the battery grip, but sometimes it's a little too bulky and/or noticeable, so I take it off. I'd go with the GS model for my second purely because I can leave the black one gripped for more serious stuff, and potentially pass the GS as a hipster film camera when I'm out and about, and draw even less attention to myself. I think the GS looks cheaper from the back, with the grey plastic buttons and such, but I think it looks great from the front.

There are still times where you need the extra speed. If I'm shooting something like a concert or candids for a pub, it can get crazy dark in there - f/1.4, 1/60-1/125, 3200-6400. I consider 1/125 the reasonable minimum for shooting people, especially candids where they aren't posing. 6400 looks great on the Fujis, but if I could get that down to 3200 or 1600 while maintaining 1/125, it would make a big difference. Plus, with candid stuff like that, you usually have enough working distance that you still have some depth of field, so apertures that fast are still usable.

I had to go to an engagement party last night, and almost didn't bring my camera because I didn't know most of the people who would be there. I decided to bring it anyway. I didn't shoot anything at the party, but saw a cool tree on the way there. It's stuff like this that makes me drag my camera with me everywhere. DSCF0170 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

I think I'm still going to hold off on upgrading to LR6 until this plays out a bit more. I'm seriously considering switching to C1, but it would be a pretty big stretch financially right now. I mostly shoot people, so I definitely don't have as much of an issue with how Adobe handles the Fuji files, but what scares me is the talk of LR6 customers losing out on updates that LRCC customers get. I'm not ready to switch to CC, and don't want to pay for an LR6 upgrade and potentially miss out on a valuable update down the road.

This is a bit convoluted, but what I've always done is upload the photo from my iPhone to Photobucket via their mobile app, then post the embed link from there. It can be a hassle, but it's a nice way to back up any photos that I like enough to post online.

I think this looks like a practical camera, for once. $4000+ is expensive, but compare that to say, a D610 with a high end prime, and it's not the massive price difference you get with something like the M. I think the AF/MF implementation is amazing, and I like that it has an EVF. It seems like they managed to add modern features (like AF, wifi, and a touch screen) to a Leica without ruining the classic design philosophy. It'll be interesting to hear the real world feedback when the camera is actually released, and see how good the AF is, or if the camera has any quirks.

Pretty much that exactly. Shooting a wedding or event for the first time would be stressful with primes (unless you're super comfortable with your focal lengths), but after one or two, you get a pretty good feel for how things will go, and you can pick your primes from there. Personally, I'd use probably the 16mm and 35mm for environment and detail photos before anyone else gets there. If I was shooting the bridal parties getting ready, I'd almost definitely use the 23 and 56, and probably live on the 23 until I wanted tighter headshots and such. The ceremony would definitely be 23 and 56. 23 if you're close or need some environment, and 56 for tighter shots, or to allow you to back away a bit and give the couple some space. (I shot a wedding with a girl who only used a 50mm, and for close up shots for the ceremony, she was literally standing arm's length from the couple, up in front of everyone - very distracting.) Bridal portrait/wedding party photos would be 23/56 hands down, unless I needed something wider for a particular shot. I'd probably do the same for speeches and more formal reception moments, like the first dance. For reception candids/dancing photos, I'd switch back to the 16/35 combo, so I could get in close for dance photos, and keep the 35 handy for natural light candid stuff or impromptu portraits. All that is based on having two bodies to work with. If you only have one body, I can see lens choice being even more crucial. I second shot a lot of weddings last summer with one body, and chose a 17-50 2.8 as my primary lens so I had the versatility, and just used my 50 1.4 when I needed the wide aperture. My Fuji situation is a bit different. I only have the X-T1 right now, but I only have primes (currently the 18, 23, and 35, and hoping to get the 56 and 16 before too long). If I was doing a lot of weddings or paid work, I'd be buying a second body as soon as I could afford it, but I'm not really looking to get into too much paid work, so I'm stuck with the one body for the foreseeable future. I've got one wedding that I'm doing as a favour this summer, and I'll have to make a lot more decisions beforehand about what lens I'll be using for certain situations. I'm expecting I'll be using the 23 for getting ready photos, probably the 35 for the ceremony and majority of the bridal portraits, then using the 23 for reception candids, and switching to the 18mm + flash for dancing photos.

I've definitely seen it in some photos online, but like Norseman said, it was likely an issue with how the older processing software handled an entirely new sensor with an entirely different demosaicing process. I've had an X-T1 since last fall, when it was six months old or so, and use Lightroom 5, and I've never had any issues. Park bench by philbabbey, on Flickr DSCF1461 by philbabbey, on Flickr DSCF0084 by philbabbey, on Flickr DSCF0052 by philbabbey, on Flickr

Not sure if this should be in People or Misc, but what if it's a shot with no people? I don't have many concert photos, but have been wanting to get into it more and would love to see what everyone else has. That Dirty Racket by philbabbey, on Flickr That Dirty Racket by philbabbey, on Flickr DSCF0150 by philbabbey, on Flickr DSCF0077 by philbabbey, on Flickr

John B&W by philbabbey, on Flickr DSCF0086bw by philbabbey, on Flickr Dave b&w by philbabbey, on Flickr DSCF0128 by philbabbey, on Flickr Cory by philbabbey, on Flickr That Dirty Racket by philbabbey, on Flickr

Emily by philbabbey, on Flickr DSCF0035 by philbabbey, on Flickr

This is the X-T1 + 23 1.4. DSCF0052 by philbabbey, on Flickr

Here's a sunset from tonight that I shot on my way out from work. It's super handy that I can drag it around with me now. I'm considering looking into a smaller bag yet for everyday carry, and so I'm not compulsively bringing all three lenses with me everywhere I go. DSCF0040 by philbabbey, on Flickr

Here are a couple recent ones. Late to the sunset by philbabbey, on Flickr DSCF0043 by philbabbey, on Flickr

Looks like I'm the odd one out here, but I totally disagree. It seems to me like they're planning on replacing the 35 1.4. And I think this would be a great idea. The 35 1.4 is a great lens, but it's a bit of a jack of all trades. The AF is a little dodgy for street or event shooting, but it has great IQ. And everyone loves the idea of the 35 f2 WR. I think they're better off replacing the 35 1.4 with two lenses. If they axed the 1.4 and just kept the f2 WR, portrait and low light event people would be out of luck. 35mm is too tight for me for an everyday lens, so I use it for portraits and low light event work, like concerts. I'd kill for the f1.0 for the times when even 1.4 is a little dark, and I'm assuming 1.0 will mean even better image quality at 1.4 and 2.0. Changing the 35 1.4 into two different specialized lenses meets more customers' needs, and I think making a crazy flagship lens just because they can adds some character to the company that many are lacking. Look at how well the Otus lenses are doing - they might fit a smaller niche than a 50mm 1.8, but those who like them like them a lot, and that can still mean the lens will sell. If the 33 1.0 is crazy expensive like the 56 APD, I definitely won't be able to buy it anytime soon, but if they can get it around the $1000 like the regular 56, I'd gladly sell my 35 1.4 for it.

Agreed. 16mm is wide enough to be different but still tight enough to work as an environmental portrait lens. 23mm is my favourite overall, and it's what I'd choose if I had to pick one lens. And 56mm is tight enough for headshots but still wide enough to be versatile. Right now I have the 18, 23, and 35. Sort of the poor man's version of that setup. I got the 18 over the 14 for the size and speed, but the 16 would negate either of those for me.

AFAIK, Continuous High only shows the previous photo, but Continuous Low will show movement during burst shooting. Maybe try continuous low? I'm not sure why you were having AF problems. I shoot primes, and not sports, but that should be the same lighting as f/2.8, 1/125, and 800, and I shoot in darker conditions than that all the time. My guess is maybe the plexiglass was reflecting light and messing with AF? It doesn't seem like it should be so dark as to affect AF. How is it in other conditions The firmware 4.0 update coming in June should make AF 2 stops darker, so hopefully that will help. Since you have some depth of field to work with, could you try AF-S?

Thanks. IIRC is was probably infinity. I used AF each time because it was cold and I was in a hurry. It's not the sharpest photo I've ever seen, but it was the 18mm, and I was using one of those little plastic table top tripods, so there was probably some shake in there.

I don't know how popular this opinion is, but I'd love a rangefinder-style with a fixed 50mm equivalent, say 2.8 with a leaf shutter. This is probably unrealistic, but if they could do that for around the $2000 mark, I'd to everything I could to buy one. I normally prefer 35mm, but 50mm is still good for an every day focal length, and it's tight enough for me that I can do headshots with it, too. A guy can dream. It'll probably be $8k minimum, if the Pentax 645z is anything to go by.

This is a pretty cliché photo in my city, but it was a good way to test the dynamic range of my X-T1. The dynamic range compared to my Canon 70D is huge. Here's a photo from my old Canon. I'd pushed the shadows about as far as I could before the noise got too noticeable. sunsetdesktop3 by philbabbey, on Flickr And here's one from the X-T1 with the 18mm. I stopped lifting the shadows not because of noise, but because I was approaching HDR levels of dynamic range. Bluewater Bridge by philbabbey, on Flickr

I'd guess, if anything, medium format. But even then I'm not sure. In an interview a while back they said that they were considering medium format down the road, but weren't really interested in 35mm because they thought their APS-C sensors and glass could compete with FF in a more compact package. The X100T hasn't been out that long, and I don't think a bridge camera would be crazy news, so my guess is they're finally wrapping up the 24MP organic sensor and are gearing up to announce the X-Pro 2.

Great shot. What did you think of the AF? I've shot one short wedding with my X-T1 so far, and definitely noticed the AF, but at least it's accurate when it does hit. And the ISO performance is great. With my Canon 70D, I was getting nervous shooting at 1600, but with the X-T1 I'm pretty comfortable even at 3200, and will push it to 6400 if there's no other way. My only big complaint is that there's no red AF assist lamp with flashes. Fuji's built-in assist lamp doesn't have enough range, and AF assist apparently doesn't work with the Nissin i40's LED lamp, either. I'm still going to pick that flash up soon either way, but I hope I'm wrong about the assist lamp thing. Heather and Tom by philbabbey, on Flickr Heather and Tom by philbabbey, on Flickr

Funny, I almost bought this lens on my honeymoon in Manhattan last week. We probably would have had some similar photos. Ended up getting the 23 1.4 instead, but I'd still like to pick this one up sometime.

It depends on the specs of the X-T2 for me. I love my X-T1, especially with the grip, and I feel like a smaller camera would compliment it more, as I'd have an even better camera for everyday carry. So if the X-T2 (and therefore X-Pro 2) had significantly better specs, I'd get the X-T2 because of the larger EVF, ISO dial, and grip compatibility. If the specs aren't significantly different than the X-T1 (i.e. less than a stop difference in ISO performance, or just marginally better AF), I'd get the X-Pro 2 for the less intrusive form factor, and keep the X-T1 for more serious occasions.

Size and AF speed. As small as the current 35mm is, 1.4 is still a lot of glass to move around.