Max_Elmar

Not at all. For one thing, Fuji simply does not make a really full line up of lenses yet. Say you wanted photograph in UV with the new UV and IR capable X-T1? You would probably use a Nikon or Pacific Optics lens because Fuji does not even make a UV capable or IR optimized lens to complement the camera. Need a 300/2.8, 400/2.8, (or even a 180/2.8)? ANY Fuji lens over 230mm? Not available in Fuji land. Yet.
Fortunately, Fuji cameras can be set up to record the focal length of an adapted lens in the EXIF. Fuji even makes its own Leica lens adapter. They can even do automatic corrections for some Leica lenses.

Graffiti Fest by Trenton Talbot, on Flickr

the “ problem” with digital photography is that by comparing a lens that isn’t communicating with the camera and a lens which does you are not comparing the same quantities, but their rendition as allowed to be seen from the camera software, and this as true as raws as it is a jpegs In case someone was under the impression that a raw is a completely untouched by software version of the true image captured by the lens,... it is not.
 
A certain amount of corrections will be made by the camera processor once it knows which lens in on the camera.
 
In case of the Samyang or any adapted lens, de camera won’t correct for aberrations or light fall off as it might ( the use of  a conditional is here de rigueur because very few people would know for sure what the camera corrects, what not, and how!).

X-Pro2 needs a third OVF magnification ratio! Currently X-Pro1 has x.3 for wides, x.6 for normals - Fuji - please give us a 1:1 option for the 60 and 90, like the great Japanese RFs of yore! (Nikon S2, S3, S4, SP, and Canon P all have 1:1 finders!) That would be amazing.

I did a photo shoot for a client this weekend, and had an opportunity to use the Rokinon when I decided to have her stand in this elevator in an old warehouse (she has a background in mechanical sculpture, so it was a really nice setting).  It's tricky to use a lens like this on people, but it can really hit the spot in some cases:
 
Holly - Photo Session by Kevin Buchanan, on Flickr

I love the 18/2 - one of my most-used lenses. I know it's not a super performer in the corners wide open, but for landscapes I find it does very well @f5.6 - how many fast 28s have you used that are great in the corners wide open? The CV 28/2, CV 28/1.8, Nikon 28/1.4 and even the summicron 28  aren't really setting the world on fire wide open in corners. (To be fair, Leica guys judge pretty harshly - as they should given the price.) I find it at least as good as the zoom - and then there is the extra stop, and compact size. What's not to love?

Look at the charts of a great many lenses at http://www.photozone/ and a trend emerges. Very fast lenses increase their center sharpness until about f/4.0 with slower lenses hitting their peak in the range of f/5.6 to f/8.0. Almost universally, f/11 shows some drop-off. By f/16-f/22 the drop-off is terrifying. No matter now widely absolute numbers may vary, the charts follow the same pattern.

Oddly, it does not show much difference when actually making photographs—without pixel peeping. Even in the optical lab, the difference between f/8.0 and f/11 tends to be quite minimal. This holds true for pretty much every lens they have tested, no matter the focal length. For your own information, shoot the same shot at f/5.6 and at f/16. Make prints and compare.

Cameras come and go, but never, ever sell good glass. Unless you change lens mount, you will eventually regret it.

So today I visited a new church for my project, and what catched my eye will probably seem strange for many.
 
Eglise des Jesuites - Molsheim by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr
 
Eglise des Jesuites - Molsheim by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr
 
Eglise des Jesuites - Molsheim by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr
 
Eglise des Jesuites - Molsheim by Christophe Branchereau, on Flickr

xe2, xf18-55 @20, f8; basel, hall of railway station

XT-1 Tam 70-210 macro (± 1985) f/? 1/110s  ISO200
 
Hibiscus N&B by G. Sauvé, sur Flickr

Arhur & his Lyrist

...
 

DSCF8637 by Enzio Harpaintner, auf Flickr

Sunset on the Baltic Sea
 
Sunset on the ship by Stockografie, on Flickr

Yesterday's meteor shower. X-T1, XF14mm.
 

It depends on a lot of factors, but I often had problems with posterization when making very large prints from jpegs. I made a series of architectural and landscape prints for one of our offices and the images with large patches of sky showed it most clearly. If you know bit about how jpeg compression works, this makes some sense. I fixed it by outputting a 16 bit TIFF at the correct size from the RAW file. Go EASY on the sharpening until the very last step! I also made the final color/exposure adjustments on the TIFF. I got good 24x36 prints from a 6mpx Nikon RAW file by this method. Much easier to work with 36mpx files from a D800 nowadays - but I still work from big 16 bit-per-channel TIFF files when I need to print large.

Hi Max_Elmar,
thank you for your opinion! Please tell me, did you find anything "abnormal" when shooting at artificial light or with flash, when using Auto WB?

I've always found (with both my Nikon and Fuji cameras) that WB presets are rarely correct without adjustment. Auto WB is considerably better, but only within a certain band or relatively "normal" lighting temps. It's OK by me - I believe that, like exposure, the photographer should be in charge of this, not some algorithm. The solution is simple - shoot jpeg, but determine the color temperature before the shot - or shoot RAW and determine it after the fact. For snapshots in normal lighting, the Auto White Balance performs quite well. 

Yep. If you scroll changelog (sort of) down to "Reduced “color blur” artifacts when processing Fujifilm XTrans raw images" under "Bug fixes" and follow the link, you can see for yourself what exactly Adobe meant with this update for us Fuji users.

Because I ask a lot more from my programs than simple processing of Fuji files. I also have library management, export to multiple places, tagging, rating, and multiple other cameras from other brands. A slight boost in detail isn't enough to get me to give up all that and use the Fuji program. 

I believe the X-E1 records 12 bits and the X-T1 records 14 bits. So yeah, the RAW files with be larger. For comparison: Sony's latest and greatest, still with lossy compression on RAW files, is effectively recording 11 bits. Nikon lets you choose 14 bit or 12 bit recording, no compression, lossy, or lossless compression. It would be nice for Fuji to add a lossless compression option. Fuji 16mp raw files are much larger than Nikon 16mp raw files.

I don't think this is a weather seal issue. There is absolutely nothing "Weather Resistant" about any camera when you take the lens off. That's what 2nd bodies are for. Yes "Weather Resistant" is a marketing term. It's not quite meaningless, but expecting it to resist "a few hours of heavy rain with nothing to cover my camera" is wishful thinking at best. All this is why IPX ratings were invented.

I shoot a D7000 and an X-E1. I find the "flattest" jpg look for Fuji is "Pro Neg Soft." You would probably have to make some additional adjustments to achieve the true Nikon "Flat" look. Those adjustments would probably be in the direction of less saturation and less contrast. The idea being that color saturation and contrast can always be added in post - shooting with the film simulations can clip the individual color channels - you can't get that data back. And if the camera blew the WB setting, you're really hosed. Shooting RAW avoids all this, but I know that's not your thing. 
 
Long story short: try Pro Neg Soft. "Ns" in the quick menu.

I've got the 10-24mm and the Samyang 12mm. The zoom is sharp and will give you flexibility, the 12mm is cheap and really great quality. Honestly, at the price of the 12mm (the Rokinon is cheaper, same lens) it's a no brainer. Get the 12mm

I second the recommendation on the Cactus system, but I use the Cactus V6's - I use one to fire a Canon 580EX from my Fuji X100 and it's great - reliable, easy to use, and reasonably affordable for two transceivers.  
 
The thing that sets the 6 apart, though, is that you can remote control the power output of the flash from the transceiver on your camera - you set the speed light to E-TTL mode and then it's fed the power level from the Cactus unit on it, which you can control manually from full power on down in 1/10 stop increments right from your camera.  It's super helpful if you're out in nature somewhere and you prop your speed light on some rock somewhere as a backlight, you don't need to keep walking over to it to adjust the power, you can do it remotely. Took a little testing to get it running but now it works great.
 
It also lets you mix-and-match units - you can control Nikon, Canon, and whatever other brands all simultaneously and independently control the power on each.  It's pretty cool.  
 
I think if you're using Yongnuo speed lights then the Yongnuo triggers are the way to go as a complete system, and from what I've read it's really good, but if you're looking to use different brands with the Fuji and control the power outputs remotely I know the V6 is solid.
 
http://www.cactus-image.com/v6.html
 
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1071312-REG/cactus_dicflawftv6_wireless_flash_transceiver_trigger.html