Golden Oxen

Another one. Near Probolingo, Indonesia. XT-1 with 18-135.

I bought a Samyang 12mm for a week or two ago. A really nice lens, and i'm very happy with it! It performs really great when shooting landscapes, for me the only purpose for this lens.

Kyoto temple in Japan

Maastricht, the Netherlands
 

Boat in B&W by Pascal van Gerven, on Flickr

Biarritz - France
 
Fuji X-T1 + 16-55 f2.8 at 16mm - f13 - ISO200 - 20s

Fujisan on Ice
 
X-T1 GS + 10-24 f/4
 

German countryside. Fuji X100S  @ISO 200, 1/640, f5.6.
 

 
 

Another landscape with the Fuji X-T1 - with 10-24mm - Seal Rocks, Oregon
 
 

I think this fits perfect… 
 

The game is over by sgt.floydpepper.hh, auf Flickr

Fuji X is great for landscape. Don't let all the megapixels guys fool you. I get very acceptable 20x30 prints from my XT-1 - such as this... with 18-55mm @ ISO 200.

looking out on the landscape by Jörg Staudt, auf Flickr
 
X-E1 with 8mm Samyang

Nice sunset!
 
X-T1 + 18-135mm, Shot@18mm, F14, 1,5 sec ISO 200

Hi, I'm relatively new to the Fuji X System having shot with a Nikon D200 and then more recently a Nikon D610. However, I recently bought an XE2 with the 18-55mm and 10-24mm lenses for travelling and have been trying the Fuji out for some landscape work. This is one of the Forth Bridge at sunrise - shot in RAW and processed with Adobe Lightroom and finished in Perfect Effects:
 
Forth Bridge by David Queenan, on Flickr

I think seascapes belong in the landscape forum. No need for a separate forum.

i do a lot of different photography and really enjoy all of them but my secret love is still landscape photography.
as a former nikon user (still using it sometimes) i wasn´t completely sure about the landscape capabilities of the xtrans sensors. i read a lot about it and wasn´t aware, until a few days ago, that many users don´t like the rendering for landscapes.
anyway i decided to buy a zeiss 12mm and adapt my 100mm filter system to it. and it works fine. let me know your experience for landscape. i´m actually using the x-e2 with xf23, zeiss touit 12mm, 55-200 & 18-55. i´m now considering a x-t1 because of tilt screen and weather sealing...
 
sample with the 12mm lens
 
 
 

That's what I hear - from Ken and others.  13mm = about 20mm in FF which is pretty nice. I used to have the Nikon 20mm F1.8 (I think it was) when I shot with my Nikon 800e's.  Now THAT was an excellent lens.
 

Angry photographer Ken Wheeler just did a review on it.
Says it is the very best and sharpest ever. Rates it a 10, only
complaint is the price he says which is high for  Viltrox
469 I believe and Ken said 360 more like it but highly recommended it as perfect.

A truly niche camera would be an X-Pro 4 that has no video features whatsoever, Zero
A state of the art stills only camera would be a surprisingly big winner in my view.
Why force folks like me to buy hybrids with so many camera models already.
Do something really different Fujifilm, Please. Non video users are a part of the market to that no
one is catering too.   
 
 

Dear Forum Members and Readers,
I wish you all a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Good Rest and a Happy New Year!
Enjoy the time with your loved ones, feast and drink (in moderation) and above all: Stay healthy!
Greetings from
Andreas & the Moderator Team

A kind of 'poor mans M10' would certainly make sense. I can't imagine there are many video shooters amongst X-Pro users and certainly not who bought the camera specifically for video shooting. So getting rid of all the video features probably doesn't affect the target group. Fuji however, needs to really 'focus' on stills photographers and get the camera exactly right for them.

Anyone that could definitively answer the question at this point most likely will not because they would be under a Non-Disclosure-Agreement. You can keep up on the rumors over at https://www.fujirumors.com
It does not make sense for Fujifilm to release the new sensor in a x-mount body if the older lenses cannot give it good enough images. Sure, absolutely sure, Fujifilm makes money selling new lenses, but they also support their setups with the older lenses. If it was not feasible to do that, then it would make better sense to put the sensor in the gfx mount line or start a new mount type series. The rumors say the sensor will be in the x-mount line.
At some point there could be a sensor that out does the lenses, that is a hard limt, but it does not sound like that point is here. We will know soon enough.

This is a good question, but I think it leads down a bit of a rabbit hole. Lens resolutions are expressed as digital quantities of an analog distribution of light. As Herco pointed out, lenses may not exhibit uniform sharpness across its entire area, and I think most, if not all, don't. Therefore, that digital expression of lens resolution may not be accurate when rendered by a sensor of greater resolution, meaning one's perception of the resultant photo might not match the expectation the lens resolution measurement would suggest.
What I'm trying to say is be careful what you wish for, because I suspect a 40MP sensor will be happy to expose the weaknesses of any lens one puts in front of it, new or old. And on what medium will one view all this resolution? I'm sure Fujifilm is likely to optimize the new lenses to the new sensor, whether it be by optical or firmware means. I have always suspected Fujifilm enhances the performance of its native branded lenses with a little in-camera processing help, and if that's the case, I think it does a great job.
Does anyone here think the existing X-Trans sensors don't render good photos? I know 40MP is going to produce more pixels to peep, but will that equate to better photos? I don't know if one will see it unless large prints are made from the files. Computer monitors are what, 96 dots per inch? Consumer level photo printers are 600, or maybe 1200 dots per inch? 
 

In the past Fujifilm rep's have stated that XF lenses were designed for up to 32MP which at that time (the 24MP was just introduced) seemed like an abundant margin. It's not that all newer lenses are able to resolve higher resolutions. The 16-80 for instance is a fine lens when you look at the center, but only average in corners and near the edge. Esp. at longer focal lengths. Primes like the 35/2 and the 80/2.8 are probably better equipped to resolve a 40MP sensor. However, it's clear that Fujifilm has a lot of MkII lenses to go...
However, whether a lens is able to resolve the megapixels of the sensor doesn't tell the whole story. Many Fujifilm fans rave about the 35/1.4 where, in all honesty, the character of the lens is partly because of some optical flaws. In fact, some Leica shooters are paying top dollar for vintage lenses that aren't very sharp at all. It's the particular look they're after. So, if you love a lens, don't worry whether it can resolve all 40MPs. You'll hardly notice the difference between 32 and 40MP anyway.

Apologies if this question has been addressed previously however I did not find anything using the search function.  There are rumors of 40MP sensor X cameras coming, starting with an H2 sometime in the near future. These have me wondering if my first generation XF lenses will offer maximum resolution on such a sensor, or if I should slowly start migrating to the latest equivalent lens series?  My lenses are all the fastest f-stop versions if that matters.  I thought I read a couple years ago Fuji mentioning that 24MP was near the max capability of XF lenses but cannot find it.  I am sure their second generation lenses are fine at 40MP if they indeed are releasing such a sensor based X body, but how about their earlier lenses?    
 
Thanks!

Great underrated lens. Wonderful bargain price with the kit as well.