Marc G.

The 56 APD is a niche lens with far more downsides than advantages. Loss of PDAF, 1 T-stop, gain of slightly more DoF, higher price tag and a change in color reproduction are heavy hitters when compared to a slightly better bokeh (and only wide open and only when the situation allows the benefit to show.

Want bokeh? Go for the 35 1.4, rather than the 60 2.4 or the other manual lenses. Skip either of the manual lenses. If you want a semi-macro option, look at the 60 2.4. Forget adapted solutions. If you buy a cheap adapter, you accept a compromise in image quality and most vintage lenses aren't all that good. By sticking a cheap adapter in the front, you reduce IQ even further. And a good adapter costs more than most vintage glass. Stick to Fuji's own lenses. You mostly get the same color reproduction, get AF and Fuji's glass is just some of the market's finest.

You're mixing up a few things. The X-T10 is the entry level version of the X-T1. This was decided by Fuji. They obviously thought that the battery grip is a more advanced feature, suitable only for the flag ship model, so they left out the battery grip contacts. It wasn't the other way round. Fujifilm communicated this more than once. After all, they left out the ISO dial and they added the AUTO switch, a feature obviously more suited for an entry level camera. Technically, both cameras perform on an identical level but the UI is different, which makes all the difference. And yes, I choose tools based on the factual features they offer. On the X-T1, I needed a battery grip. So even if the X-T10 was already on the market when I bought the X-T1s, I would have still gone for the X-T1 because it features the optional battery grip. Nothing funny about that, but rather rational thinking. Besides, you're the only one who is arguing in an emotional way. Maybe you should calm down and start discussing in an objective way. Feeling offended because someone is calling your tool entry level is not the correct response.

Actually, the majority of X-T1s I see have grips on them.

I don't get it. It's so simple: want battery grip? -> X-T1. No need for battery grip ever? -> X-T10. Done. Besides, not all Canikon cameras are provided a battery grip as far as I know.

My setup changed quite a bit. 2 X-T1 turned into 2 X-Pro2 (imo the best wedding camera money can buy you at the moment). And regarding lenses, I currently use the 16 1.4, 23 1.4, 35 1.4, 56 1.2 and 50-140 2.8. With 2 YN flashes, 2 triggers a boat load of batteries, sd cards and a few other things that's the whole kit.

Just don't go wider than 23mm and you're fine.

The X-T1 is their flagship camera, while the X-T10 is the entry level consumer camera. Only the flagship gets the benefit of having such a high level accessory. It's as easy as that.

I look at that picture and the only thing I can see is a crime committed by the photographer.

16 23 56

This is a moot point. All ONA bags look expensive and modern/hipsteresque. If you want to look cheap, this is not your kind of brand. I'm coming from Leica and this whole discussion about camerabags-that-dont-look-like-camerabags-so-thiefs-will-skip-you is pointless and has been led in the leica forums so many times. If you pull out your camera once, the whole camouflage is gone anyway. So who cares? I rather carry something I like and be careful when it comes to large crowds.

I always wondered why the images from the 16-55 looked slightly harsh, until I found out that the lens suffers severely from CA. Those CA get automatically corrected in LR and leave white edges which made for a harsh look. I sold mine after a year of much use. I prefer the look of the primes any day. Not because of the larger aperture but because how clean the images look.

That depends. I find the 18 and 35 to offer superb artistic qualities. Especially the 35 is sharp enough wide open for portraits and stopped down to 5.6 it acts as a sharp-across-the-frame landscape lens. Offering lenses in the portfolio that do multiple things rather than just sharpness is a blessing for photographers. Maybe you're too much down the technical route?

I see no reason to update the 10-24 yet. It came out 2 years ago and is still to be considered a brand new lens by any standards. I can see the need for WR but I think a 23/2 WR and 56 with a slower aperture are first to arrive. Also, there's a lot of Fujis R&D people working on medium format and lenses so I wouldn't be surprised if there's hardly anything happening regarding the WR UWA zoom.

10-24, 12 and 14... sounds a bit dense. Travel, landscape, street... hmm... I would try to go for: 10-24 f/4 or 16 1.4 (depending on your needs. I found the 10-24 to be an excellent travel lens) 35 f/2 WR 60 macro or 55-200 (you either want the macro for details or you go for focal lengths with the zoom)