MSW

I’ve just been trying out one of these. The good— Price is very modest Image quality is better than acceptable, maybe that’s an understatement Fit is tight. Focus ring(s) action is smooth and not at all sloppy Construction seems sturdy Better an 1:1 using second focus ring More distance between from of lens and subject than Giji’s 70mm The not so good— No AF Takes very little motion to change focus from infinity to close up. This means using as a general purpose telephoto is clumsy The second focus ring for magnification greater than 1:1 is clever but I’m not sure it is all that worthwhile aperture ring is located right behind the front lense ahead of the focus rings and also turns in the opposite direct from the normal Fuji lens. Works but feels wierd. Rather heavy. Focus peaking doesn’t seem to work real well with the lense. Not enough contrast? I don’t know Overall: Valid choice if you can’t afford Fuji’s 80mm macro. Valid choice if 1:1 is a requirement even though could afford the 60mm. If 1:2 is all you need/want stick with 60mm If you CAN afford Fuji’s 80mm macro and need 1:1 go with that

I have printed 18x12 from a cropped image made with an X-E1. I do not see any shortcoming with respect to resolution. I think you will just fine with the X-T2. In fact, now that I'm using an X-PRO2 (same sensor as X-T2) it's not the additional pixels that continue to surprise, it's the dynamic range that is the biggest deal. Situations that previously called for HDR now only need LR's Dhadow and Highlight sliders.

Agree. In fact that is the only substantial complaint I have about the X-E2. Any other suggestions I have had are "better this", "faster that" but they are not of the same seriousness. The eyecup situation can result in instances where is becomes nearly impossible to frame and compose a photo - almost like shooting with your eyes shut

I had similar situation. Reset of the shooting menu fixed it. I may be the case that a reset is a good idea after any major firmware up date.

The X-T2 was bulked up from the T-1 in part to accommodate the heatsink needed to accommodate 4K video. But if the link below speaks truly, 4K is already old tech - 8K is the future. Absent some big improvement in thermal efficiency, an X-T(next) will need an addition bulk-up. Maybe that will come the the super/ultimate x-trans model that is rumored to be in the pipeline. Perhaps it is time to revert to separate still and video cameras rather than the current digital Swiss Army Knives (DSAK's)? Opinions. https://petapixel.com/2017/04/17/rise-8k-pros-cons-adopt-asap/

In response to original post - Spent the last couple of days using the camera after installing the new firmware. Definitely NO problems with RAW vs JPEG vs RAW+JPG. All work. I comparred my LCD to your images and mine don't have anything greyed out. I would try RESET and follow up with as reinstall. An to my recent experience with the new software. My subject matter so far is things that don't move or at least not much so I can't comment on AF enhancements. --The AUTO setting for minimal shutter speed when using AUTO-ISO seems to do just what I was hoping it would - it's interesting (and cool) to watch the shutter speed change automatically when zooming. It seems to make about the same choice I would if I were doing it manually. One more thing to remember to disable when using a tripod! -- The new AE bracket is nice - up to 9 exposures with increments up to 2 stops. This is great for hardcore HDR among other things but ironically I resort to that far less than in the past thanks to the DR of the new sensors.

I hope that in manual focus mode it will use a direct mechanical rather than a focus by wire mechanism. Reason - because focus stacking is very common when shooting at macro distances and I can say from experience with the XF 60mm that making many small progressive focus increments can get a little vague at times. I particularly miss a hard stop at minimum distance.

It will need to be more than just a minor update as the 18-55mm when at 18mm is only slightly larger and opens to nearly the same aperture while having OIS. Version II will need to be a lot sharper than the zoom without growing bigger and heavier.

I'll take any combination of the above provided no weight or dimensional increase over X-E2. Ease of lugging is what distinguished the X-E2 from X-pro1, X-t1 ans X-t10. Don't mess with that!

Biggest wish -- DO IT SOON !! Like by year end 2017 at latest.

I think the the following is and will be true for any of the new bodies: the 24mpx sensor is a big improvement over the older 16mpx for several reasons but to me the most important is the improvement in dynamic range. It's ver obvious to me when I compare processing in LR.

I can't think of anything about the fuji bodies that bug me excepr lrns hoods, lens cap (front and Rear) and the diopter control. The diopter thing could be improved if there was a way to lock in the setting (and also I tend to poke myself in the eye when adjusting it). None of these are serious and I had complaints about Nikon diopter adjustments that were similar.

I'm not real excited about any of the lens hoods (or front and rear caps) that Fuji makes. I'm comparing them to the Nikon equivalent to which I had been accustomed. Every brand has some special area of weakness and this is Fuji's. Not a reason to abandon the rest of the system but it is an area of constant annoyance. [At least in the case of front lens caps, when a replacement is needed a Nikon of the same size is a definite improvement.]

Yes, as opined by several posters buy the heios for its faults not its virtues. If resolution is the issue I'm pretty sure even an XC 16-50mm would win out! I tend to use my Helios with the aperture wide open as I'm usually looking for the softness. .

Agree. I have a 44-2 that gets a bit of use when I want a certain look. Based on photos I've seen made with other vintage or resurrected vintage lenses, the Helios seems to be less "in your face" the peculiar swirly bits are there but not so strong that the draw the eye away from the subject. I also wish Meyer-Goerlitz would get moving with the Trioplan re-release so as to drive down the price of the older originals to my price range.

I don't need a macro lens very often but when I do an older Nikon 105mm (AF-D or even just AF) works well. Good ones are on eBay around $100 if you watch.

Frankly from my point of view and personal preference.these are pretty unimportant 1. Not interested in video. 2. Would be nice as long as it didn't increase the weight or dimensions -- unlikely pipe dream to say the least. I can deal with it. 3. Never used that feature on cameras that had it. Prefer to just switch out batteries. Of course, these are all PERSONAL -- they could be deal killers foe someone else., However: 4. OVF is a tremendous benefit in certain situations with very bright sunlight. It also works very well when panning or following a moving subject - no black out, no freeze, no flicker. Even when a small fraction of a second all of these annoy at best and sometime seriously interfere. 5. I find it a big step up from any of the prior generation Fuji cameras for just one big reason -- the new sensor. I could have stuck with the older Mpix count, that's not super important. The new sensor seems to have a greater DR - at least that's how it feels when I'm working with the files in Lightroom. Situations that used to call our for HDR just don't need it anymore. I thought I was maybe kidding myself on this but this last weekend I hauled ot my X-E2 because where I was going involved a fairly strenuous hike and I wanted to minimize the weight I was carrying. Quite a few shots that would have worked with the X-pro2 that I've become accustomed to just didn't work out because I couldn't make LR adjustments as successfully as I've come to expect.

I would think XF 50mm F2 vs XF18-50mm would a tougher dilemma than vs 56mm. In camera (or in LR) optical corrections reduce the optical advantage of the prime. The prime would still have the advantage of weight, size and aperture, however the aperture advantage is partly removed by the OIS function of the zoom. Vs the XF 56 f/1.4 the issue depends the subject matter and the user's need/desire for shooting in very dark situations or when a very narrow DoF is desired or especially nice out of focus blur. These are pretty specific properties -- if they are needed/desired without compromise only the F1.4 will do. I they are not, then it would just be a waste of money.

Full disclosure: I have both. The fisheye is, indeed, likely to just sit in your bad. I would not use it for a travel lens. The way I use it is to put it on the camera body then go somewhere with no other lens. Using a fisheye, at least for me, requires putting myself in a state of mind where I am looking exclusively for things to do with it. I don't seem to do that well if the option of using an alternate exists. The reason I think is that the fish does things no other lens can and you may not think of them unless forced to. Like when stopped down the DoF is so great the tip of a leaf touching the lens is in focus. Flare from the sun low in the sky is usually a bad thing, but wuith the fisheye you can sometimes find way to use it as a dominate compositional element. Ect Ect

It only seems big and heavy on a Fuji. Fuji reps claim the x (non Beyer) sensor lets them be competitive with full frame DSLRs. The closest match up on this basis I can think of would be with Nikon D750 + 70-200mm F/2.8 vs Fuji X-T2 + 50-140mm F/2.8. I have no informed opinion as to how that would work out if you were to judge strictly by the images. Hower, just look up the weight specs and add them up -- if you think the Fuji is big just try lugging the 70-200mm around all day. Notwithstanding my commentary, above, I hope someone at Fuji notes that Nikon has a 70-200mm F/4 for a good reason

Sharpness is not an issue - it's way more that jim dandy. Cons - which are well known - Very slow AF, but if you are using it or any other macro lens at macro or close up distances, AF doesn't work that well. MF or moving the camera in and out works better. - Max magnification is "only" 2:1, where as many people only 1:1 to be macro. However, several decades back the first Nikon lenses designated "micro" only achieved 2:1 and were the wonder of their day. Besides that it takes a lot of practice to shoot handheld at 2:1. - The working distance (space between the subject and the front of the lens) is short and can make it awkward to get light on the subject or if the subject is alive and mobile getting close may chase it away. I think og the XF 60mm as a good general purpose short short telephoto lens with macro capability and accurate but slow AF. If you are interested in this lens for dedicated macro (nothing else) i suggest two alternatives A- wait for for Fuji's XF 80mm macro next year B- Look for a used Nikon 105mm Micro "AF-s", "AF" or "AF-D" (but NOT "G") on eBay plus a Nikon E to Fuji X adapter. It will be inexpensive, heavy/bulky, manual focus only and sharp The manual focus is mechanically direct, i.e., not 'by-wire" which works better for macro anyway, especially if you try focus staking.

I didn't spot this thread util after I had already made some comments about KR in a thread I started myself. If there is a moderator reading this feel free to move it here. Meanwhile, I suggest that you consider his comments about color rendition after you first look at his gallery on his sight. Don't want to disparage another's aesthetic taste, but his and mine certainly differ.

X-E3 please!! With new 24mpx sensor and fast AF

And while they are at it please make a menu option to base the viewfinder histogram on raw values rather than jpeg. This is because there is some ability to EBTR (expose beyond the right) if you are going to post process a raw file -- but it is pretty much hit and miss guess how far beyond the right you can get away with

Of the two, I prefer the XC 55-230mm for most of the reasons previously stated. While the XF is a little better optically (by the numbers, anyway), when I want something really special, I haul out the XC 50-140mm. The latter is pricey but I shopped for a couple of months until I found a a nice used grey market one for a few Benjamins below the cost a new one.