Alan Sircom

Great image.
 
But yes, 'part' of the reason why you don't find using a 14mm that difficult to use is those years of familiarity working with super wides. And this image is a perfect example as it exhibits all of that familiarity in action. 
 
If you are used to working with a lens like the 14mm, you will know almost instinctually to get very close to that front sun-lounger, you will know the depth of field required, the importance of those vanishing points and the horizontal, and the placement of the horizon. Someone who hasn't got that depth of experience working with super wides will miss one or more of these compositional elements until they start to nail using the lens. Most commonly, they will remain a step or two too far away from the subject. They might not be thinking of images in terms of vanishing points (especially twin vanishing points as you have done here) and may be so surprised by the perspective from a super wide, they make the rookie error of not getting the horizon perfectly level or place it badly.  
 
All of these points can and do fall into place with understanding how to use a super wide, but if the photographer's widest lens to date is the 18-55 fuji zoom (or equivalent), their composition will at first be informed by that experience.

I disagree. A superwide lens like the 14mm does take some getting used to from a compositional sense. It's not as daunting as some claim, but it is both daunting and perceived as daunting by people starting out. The old school method of learning to compose one focal length at a time wasn't a bad one because you usually started with the standard lens, then went moderately wide, then either even wider, or a moderate tele depending on your tastes. This gave you the compositional skills to best use the more extreme focal lengths. Without that, a supersede is hard to handle.
 
It's not that hard to learn once you set to it, but you need to learn to use it.

XF18mm really nice small lens. There is some softness in corners because of software correction. And some aperture abberations without it. But anyway it's really nice lens, when you know its issues and use its advantages in right way.
 
Rooms by crunch_tone, on Flickr

This thing is sharp. 
 

One more with the 18mm f2
 
 
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This lens is surprisingly nice to use indoors taking pics of my kid. Straight out of cam, no post processing. Couldn't get this kind of pic with any of my canon lenses because there is no 18 f/2. And I wouldn't get these wonderful colors even with post processing.
 

My long story short: had the 18, sold it, missed it, bought it again and will hold on to it for dear life now. I also own the 14, 35 (1.4) and 90. I hardly ever use the 14 and might as well sell it. The 18 and 35 I adore and use most of the time. The 90 is simply magical. I sometimes deliberately take it out and try to find subjects for it.
 
Here's one taken with the 18mm.
 

Quite true but you can not tell me that you don't have issues with your Nissin. The dials turns rather easily, the head doesn't stay put and can wiggle quite a bit, it feels utterly cheap when holding it in hand.
 
Don't get me wrong, I love the TTL of it on Fuji and it serves perfectly as a secondary flash, plus it's really small and very good for its size but my main workhorse is still the good 'ol SB800 from Nikon, I am on full manual on that one but it still has to fail me at one point.
 
In a pinch or when I need TTL, the Nissin is a good flash, but it is not something I would trust at 100%, every now and then, I double check it to make sure the dials didn't turned because I might have lightly brushed against it. It is also a nightmare to use in low light situation. You really have to make a mental check to remember your settings before adjusting your dials.
 
It's not much, but it adds distraction and take a bit of your mind away which is annoying when you are trying to nail down a certain shot or when waiting for the moment.
 
For leisure shooting, god I love this flash, it's super small and easily stored in a bag and serve its purpose well enough.
On a paid assignment, I simply can not trust it, at least not fully.

With the launch of the 100-400 XF zoom, the current roadmap has just one lens - the 120 Macro.
 
That's not really a roadmap anymore. What would you like to see on the next roadmap?
 
As I'm enjoying the 35mm f/2 'Fujicron' more and more each time I use it, I'd love to see more of the same. 
 
I'd like to see a 23mm f/2 WR in a similar form factor, and maybe a revised 60mm and 18mm (both f/2 and WR, and if the 120 covers the macro market, Fuji could dispense with the 60mm macro functions, just make it small and fast-focus). That would make an outstanding quartet of lenses to go with the X-Pro2.
 
I also think Fuji would be good making a T/S lens and possibly a fast tele (like a 200mm f/2.8). And of course the 33mm f/1 everyone's keen to talk about.
 
What would be your additions to the next roadmap? Who knows, maybe Fuji is watching... 

As a former CES,T.H.E Show,& VSAC audio exhibitor (GreaterRanges/Neuance, w/ Toffco, Neat Acoustics,Sakura Systems,Bottlehead),I'd say that your 23 is your friend with it nearly fused to the X-T1 for most of the show but I'd carry the 18-55 in your jacket pocket with a small bounce flash for portraiture and general room & venue shots.
There's little to no opportunity to set up a tripod during show hours with mulling crowds of showgoers and press.Depending on your specific interests, a single extension tube might be advised for close ups/semi-macro views.
Assuming you're going to post to a blog or netzine rather than print media, I'd opt to bump up the ISO's and rely on OIS, a steady hand with the drive mode set to CL or CH and live with a bit of noise.HiFi reportage isn't fine art but you need to show off the details and get some decent product hero shots.
 
k
 
ps- hint-ask the exhibitors to have their pics taken next to their gear first-
a bit of ego stroking is often helpful and appreciated in show situations. it also helps in organizing your "notes" and comments for later reportage.

I disagree. Practically every press photographer I know of has a 1.4x tele in his or her bag because it gives them extra reach on their 70-200 without having to carry the extra load of a 300mm and a monopod. As many of them are now freelancers, the 'extra load' of a 300mm can be translated to 'additional cost I can no longer justify'.
 
Two bodies, three lenses, a flash or two, a teleconverter, a laptop, and associated gubbins can all fit in a Think Tank ShapeShifter. Anything that cannot fit into that bag is excess baggage for a press photographer... unless it's a step-ladder!

Having tried to use a Leica M6 with a 135mm lens in the film era, you really don't want the OVF to reach too far into the telephoto. The bright frame for 135mm is tiny in the viewfinder, magnifiers never seem to work as well as you would expect, and parallax errors plague your picture taking, no matter how good the parallax compensation system. 

Having tried to use a Leica M6 with a 135mm lens in the film era, you really don't want the OVF to reach too far into the telephoto. The bright frame for 135mm is tiny in the viewfinder, magnifiers never seem to work as well as you would expect, and parallax errors plague your picture taking, no matter how good the parallax compensation system. 

In Rockwell's review yesterday (Sept 9), titled "Fuji's best interchangeable-lens camera yet, adding a flash and more to the X-T1," he raves about the camera.
 
If I weren't already planning to buy one, this review would convince me to do so.

Ken Rockwell is the Chuck Norris of photography
Ken Rockwell's camera has similar settings to ours, except his are: P[erfect] Av[Awesome Priority Tv[Totally Awesome Priority] M[ajestic]
Ken Rockwell doesn't color correct. He adjusts your world to match his.
Sure, Ken Rockwell deletes a bad photo or two. Other people call these Pulitzers.
Ken Rockwell doesn't adjust his DOF, he changes space-time.
Circle of confusion? You might be confused. Ken Rockwell never is.
Ken Rockwell doesn't wait for the light when he shoots a landscape - the light waits for him.
Ken Rockwell never flips his camera in portrait position, he flips the earth
Ken Rockwell ordered an L-lens from Nikon, and got one.
Ken Rockwell is the only person to have photographed Jesus; unfortunately he ran out of film and had to use a piece of cloth instead.
When Ken Rockwell brackets a shot, the three versions of the photo win first place in three different categories
Before Nikon or Canon releases a camera they go to Ken and they ask him to test them, the best cameras get a Nikon sticker and the less good get a Canon sticker
Once Ken tested a camera, he said I cant even put Canon on this one,thats how Pentax was born
Rockwellian policy isn't doublethink - Ken doesn't even need to think once
Ken Rockwell doesn't use flash ever since the Nagasaki incident.
Only Ken Rockwell can take pictures of Ken Rockwell; everyone else would just get their film overexposed by the light of his genius
Ken Rockwell wanted something to distract the lesser photographers, and lo, there were ducks.
Ken Rockwell is the only one who can take self-portraits of you
Ken Rockwell's nudes were fully clothed at the time of exposure
Ken Rockwell once designed a zoom lens. You know it as the Hubble SpaceTelescope.
When Ken unpacks his CF card, it already has masterpieces on it.
Rockwell portraits are so lifelike, they have to pay taxes
On Ken Rockwell's desktop, the Trash Icon is really a link to National Geographic Magazine
Ken Rockwell spells point-and-shoot "h-a-s-s-e-l-b-l-a-d"
When Ken Rockwell went digital, National Geographic nearly went out of business because he was no longer phyically discarding photos
For every 10 shots that Ken Rockwell takes, 11 are keepers.
Ken Rockwell's digital files consist of 0's, 1's AND 2's.
Ken Rockwell never focus, everything moves into his DoF
Ken Rockwell's shots are so perfect, Adobe redesigned photoshop for him: all it consists of is a close button.
The term tripod was coined after his silhouette
Ken Rockwell never produces awful work, only work too advanced for the viewer
A certain braind of hig-end cameras was named after people noticed the quality was a lot "like a" rockwell
Ken Rockwell isn't the Chuck Norris of photography; Chuck Norris is the Ken Rockwell of martial arts.
Ken Rockwell never starts, he continues

Personally, I don't have any problems with larger cameras and lenses. Check in desks are another matter, and one that will likely only get worse, because RyanAir is charging customers for every single bag that goes in the hold, and Swiss can turn round flights fast because it prevents people from using the hold and restrict the size, weight, and number of cabin bags on some flights. Other airlines will follow suit, because both actions mean more profitability.  
 
I also don't think anyone here is blind to Fuji's shortcomings. If anything, those of us who use the system are more aware of its shortcomings than those who sit on the sidelines and pick holes at random. I would prefer Fuji got its act together in several important criteria, such as flash, AF (it's better but still not 'there' IMO), oversmoothed high ISO JPEGs, and its battery technology. It would also be nice if Adobe and Fuji worked still closer, although I'm liking C1 more and more.
 
Arguments for film camera time-frames don't survive in the digital age. You could measure the life of a film camera or a lens in decades, and the only aspect of photography where that still applies (just) is Leica lenses. Everything else is on a much faster turnaround time. You don't need to buy every iteration of camera or lens, but hardly any of the Nikon lenses that currently sell are the same models that were in the Nikon line-up of 10 years ago. Canon does better in this, now. 
 
I also don't see how someone who used Nikon, then a Fuji XP1, then a Fuji XT1, and then went back to Nikon in a few years gets to lecture about people 'excessively changing from cameras and systems'. I had a Nikon system. Now I have a Fuji system. The cameras that I bought in that Fuji system I still use today, whether they are fashionable or not. 
 
Finally the arguments for Fuji going FF do not stack up, IMO. Fuji is a niche player. The niche player in FF is Leica. If Fuji spent time, money, and energy to develop a system that trailed behind Leica in the FF market, how is that a good thing? Surely Fuji would be better improving what it already does well than going after what few scraps fall from the FF table?

Personally, I don't have any problems with larger cameras and lenses. Check in desks are another matter, and one that will likely only get worse, because RyanAir is charging customers for every single bag that goes in the hold, and Swiss can turn round flights fast because it prevents people from using the hold and restrict the size, weight, and number of cabin bags on some flights. Other airlines will follow suit, because both actions mean more profitability.  
 
I also don't think anyone here is blind to Fuji's shortcomings. If anything, those of us who use the system are more aware of its shortcomings than those who sit on the sidelines and pick holes at random. I would prefer Fuji got its act together in several important criteria, such as flash, AF (it's better but still not 'there' IMO), oversmoothed high ISO JPEGs, and its battery technology. It would also be nice if Adobe and Fuji worked still closer, although I'm liking C1 more and more.
 
Arguments for film camera time-frames don't survive in the digital age. You could measure the life of a film camera or a lens in decades, and the only aspect of photography where that still applies (just) is Leica lenses. Everything else is on a much faster turnaround time. You don't need to buy every iteration of camera or lens, but hardly any of the Nikon lenses that currently sell are the same models that were in the Nikon line-up of 10 years ago. Canon does better in this, now. 
 
I also don't see how someone who used Nikon, then a Fuji XP1, then a Fuji XT1, and then went back to Nikon in a few years gets to lecture about people 'excessively changing from cameras and systems'. I had a Nikon system. Now I have a Fuji system. The cameras that I bought in that Fuji system I still use today, whether they are fashionable or not. 
 
Finally the arguments for Fuji going FF do not stack up, IMO. Fuji is a niche player. The niche player in FF is Leica. If Fuji spent time, money, and energy to develop a system that trailed behind Leica in the FF market, how is that a good thing? Surely Fuji would be better improving what it already does well than going after what few scraps fall from the FF table?

The entire FF market is a niche market. Go that route and Fuji just dissipates its resources. I understand that there are people out there who want or occasionally need 35mm sensors, but can you understand that there are also plenty of us who do not want to go down that route? In my case so much so that I abandoned Sony, whose cameras I had been using since the A200, for Fuji precisely because Sony decided to put their energies into FF and put APS on the back burner.

Whoa! This isn't DPReview.
 
The OP's needs are relatively specialist and not easily met, by Fuji or any other mirrorless system, IIRC. No camera system is perfect, and no camera system is ideal for everyone, and what the OP describes is beyond Fuji's flash system as it stands. We should be pleading with Fuji to make a flash system that allows people like the OP to stay in the Fuji fold than patronise people who hit the limits of the system. 
 
IMO the worst thing a company can do is listen to its fanboys. It's even worse than listening to the detractors, because at least the detractors give you an indication of what might not be that company's finest hour. The OP raised some valid points about AF (that a few of us have addressed if not entirely resolved) and about flash (which no one can fully address). It's that kind of commentary (and the rational responses) that Fuji should be noting.

Whoa! This isn't DPReview.
 
The OP's needs are relatively specialist and not easily met, by Fuji or any other mirrorless system, IIRC. No camera system is perfect, and no camera system is ideal for everyone, and what the OP describes is beyond Fuji's flash system as it stands. We should be pleading with Fuji to make a flash system that allows people like the OP to stay in the Fuji fold than patronise people who hit the limits of the system. 
 
IMO the worst thing a company can do is listen to its fanboys. It's even worse than listening to the detractors, because at least the detractors give you an indication of what might not be that company's finest hour. The OP raised some valid points about AF (that a few of us have addressed if not entirely resolved) and about flash (which no one can fully address). It's that kind of commentary (and the rational responses) that Fuji should be noting.

Like it or not, we are in a time when a two year product life cycle is expected for almost any technology.
 
The market decides this for itself, saying 'you must have...' for the six months of a product's life, 'you should have...' for the next six, 'you still have?' for the next six months, and then 'why do you have?' after that. By the time you bought the X100s, it was already into that second phase of its life cycle (which is just about where the X100t is now, BTW).
 
I use an X100s and while I agree that I'd like the improvements you suggest, we don't deserve them. For the record, the original X100 owners did deserve the FW upgrade they got after the camera was discontinued, because it turned the X100 into the camera it should have always been from the outset. We X100s owners didn't have to suffer the same blunted camera system at launch, so there's no pressing need for firmware updates.
 
Like many imaging products in 2015, Fuji's biggest competitor for the X100t is its own past. Demanding Fuji make the X100s into a quasi-X100t is letting the competitor win, and ultimately we all lose.

Like it or not, we are in a time when a two year product life cycle is expected for almost any technology.
 
The market decides this for itself, saying 'you must have...' for the six months of a product's life, 'you should have...' for the next six, 'you still have?' for the next six months, and then 'why do you have?' after that. By the time you bought the X100s, it was already into that second phase of its life cycle (which is just about where the X100t is now, BTW).
 
I use an X100s and while I agree that I'd like the improvements you suggest, we don't deserve them. For the record, the original X100 owners did deserve the FW upgrade they got after the camera was discontinued, because it turned the X100 into the camera it should have always been from the outset. We X100s owners didn't have to suffer the same blunted camera system at launch, so there's no pressing need for firmware updates.
 
Like many imaging products in 2015, Fuji's biggest competitor for the X100t is its own past. Demanding Fuji make the X100s into a quasi-X100t is letting the competitor win, and ultimately we all lose.