MSW

I think all the X-series have an AF-L button. If the focus selector switch on the front is set to M (manual), the AF-L acts as a BBF button so long as you have not made a customized assignment to to be something else. That said, it is located just right for me on the X-E1/2 but is not quite right on the X-Pro2. The Main difficulty is that on the X-pro2 the button is flush with the body and hard to locate without looking, where as on the older X-E1/2 it was slightly raised and my thumb could find it easily. In both the X-E2 and X-pro2 it sits just above the Q-menu button so it is easy to press the wrong one. I've been using a small piece of gaffer tape between the two buttons to help me find either of then without taking the camera away from my face.

This may be an update X-E1 (IR converted) X-E2 X-Pro2

If you use the AF-L button for BBF like I have starting with X-E1 you like others may find it is too flush with the body to locate just by touch; that is without taking your eye from the EVF/OVF. At least one person has reported using a small dab of Sugru to raise a bump on the button but fears that may affect resale vale. Here is my alternative suggestion: Cut a short, narrow strip of gaffer tape in the space between the AF-L and Q-menu buttons. Actually I use three strips on top of each other to be sure it can be felt easily. Gaffer tape leaves little or no residue when removed. It is black with a rough surface and barely visible but easily felt

As long as 8mm is rectilinear, I'm all for it. Ultra wide is an acquired taste any it takes time to figure out what subject matter it works best with. Also, it the max focal length were 18mm that might be a little nicer since that i one use a lot. (selfish me!)

If it were me, I would tend to use the 14mm on the x-pro1 simply because fast AF is less critical when using ultra wide. I do something similar sometimes by lugging along a X-E2 with a Samyang 12mm just in case. I zone focus with it - f8 or 11 and nearly everything from 3ft to infinity looks sharp.

Fotasy works for me. I use it with a Nikon 105mm micro. Be aware that there are two different types of adapter for Nikon lenses: One for G-series, i.e. newer nikon lenses without an aperture ring. One pre-G Nikon lenses, i.e., the ones WITH an aperture ring.

According to the following post, http://www.thephoblographer.com/2016/09/19/the-fujifilm/#.V-APivArK70, the price including the 63MM "standard" lens wil be $10,000. That is no doubt a bit lass than Hasselblad but way beyond my wallet! At this point, if one really needs/wants MF but can't scrape up that kind of cash the only option is to get a good film scanner or go with Pentax.

I use AE-L a lot. In manual focus mode it is basically used as BBF. Yes it is an awkward location. My solution so far is to use a narrow stip of gaffer tape nest to the AE-L but to help locate it it. I worry about cleanly removing Sugru (gaffer tape almost always peels off cleanly.

But add OIS to the 16-55

Most likely it will be out of my price range unless I win the lottery, but I would like to see it happen just the same. If it strengthens Fuji's market position in general that ought to provide more resources for X-series support and further development. While this first MF camera will have interchangeable lenses, I think fixed lens model wold have its fans. A sort of X100 on steroids. In the fashion of the Fuji MF rangefinders it could be called a G340.

But will it bet vertical vs horizontal or EVF vs OVF? Or something else

Here is someone else who used a DK-19: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57599694

Cant say for everyone but me YES. Very annoying. No need to get an official Fuji replacement, there are cheap third party lens caps on Amazon that work fine. All you need to know is the diameter - 58mm = 58mm regardless of the brand. At risk of committing heresy, if you want the easiest to use and best sticking lens cap get a Nikon in the appropriate diameter. In my experience they work a little better than all others (get occassional confused remarks from gear heads who see a Fuji lens with Nikon lens cap - seems to boggle small minds). Those rectangular rubber caps that go on the rectangular lens hoods suck even worse. Don't bother to replace - the new one will just fall in a little while.

Nope, not on X-E1, X-E2, and now x-Pro2. No wiggle. There may be unit to unit variation with the lens even if it with in the makers QA specs. However rear lens caps falls off if you look at it cross ways - go figure.

Some difference but not a lot. A couple of years ago I moved from a 16Mpx Nikon to a 24Mpx Nikon. Usually there was no discernable difference. - BUT - a couple of photos I reshot did have a noticeable gain. These were landscape with a loot of fine detail. Normally, standing a few feet back from a 18-12 print you wouldn't see into the detail but there was some content in the fine detail that attracted some viewers. This isn't something I would expect very often. On the other hand, while ability to crop more aggressively isn't something that I have need for, bird and wild life folks often cite this - more Mpx may be more affordable than a longer lens. The answer to the question, therefore, depends in part on the subject matter you photograph and how large you print. The trend in sensor technology toward more pixels often seems to brig greater dynamic range along with it. I don't think we are even close to being where the is no benefit to greater DR.

There is no perfect camera (or in general product). All are a compromise. My X-E2 is not perfect but I would not go back to Nikon's D7100 which was not perfect either. The criterion is which generates better photographic results. My X-pro2 is in transit as I write. I already know there will be some aspects (weight and physical dimensions) that I will miss compared to the X-E2 but they are worth giving up for some of the new cameras capabilities. When I complain about some feature or its lack it is in the hope that Fuji will address it in the future so that in three years or so the next round of cameras will be an even better mix of compromises.

Yes, it happens to me when trying to create sun stars. X-E2 + <most any lens> but wide angle tends to be worse. Also the more you stop down the worse it seems to be which is too bad as stopping down also produces bigger sun stars. Fortunately, I can live without them. For the record, I would sometimes have similar issues with my Nikon DLSR back before Fuji just not as pronounced.

A XF 120mm macro would be in the almost the same market niche as the Nikon 200mm macro. I do closer up from time to time but not true macro. The couple of times I've seen someone using one for true macro it was quite a production. Since 1:1 is difficult to impossible hand-held a tripod plus focusing rail set was involved. No AF or IS desired. The 200mm macro is also supposed to be the sharpest 200mm ever made. It's hard to see what Fuji's 120mm could bring to that game - once you are on tripod and focus rail mode as well as manual everything it would be just a simple to get a used Nikon and attach it to your X-T2 with an adapter. General purpose XF 135mm (200mm equivalent viewing angle) f/2.8 -- THAT would be a whole different story.

I thought, perhaps incorrectly, that the basic semiconductor chip is the same for current Nikon and X-trans. The difference being the RGB pattern (X vs Beyer) that is overlaid. If that is correct, most of the Hassleblad and X-trans process would be the same - you would only need to allocate wafers (or die) to one product or the other until you were a number of process steps down stream.

Just my thought in light of the new mirrorless Hasselblad -- Fuji should start with something a little different but familiar. Consider a MF analog to the X100. Single lens, very compact (for MF), rangefinder form etc etc. Mirrorless in the tradition of GA645 and/or GW670 but with all mod cons. Call it an X645. Rumors said it would use a Beyer sensor -- this puzzels me - why not a use Xtrans technology??

Is this from the streetpiano.com "Play Me, I'm Yours" project?

To ad an example that is particularly odd there is the MIR f/2.8 37mm. As is it's just a clunky unremarkable item but it is relatively simple to unscrew the front retaining ring and reveres the front lens element. The result is a more or less sharp center that gets very soft as you move away from center. It's not much use most of the time but you can get one from Ukraine for about $35. Its mostly a nvelty but perhaps one or twice a year the effect is nice to have. (No, I don't think you can get the same effect in Photoshop without a lot of work.)

I did - somewhere - maybe not here though. 50-60mm is a very handy size for a general purpose lens. If you don't do portraits you are paying for unused capabilities with the 56mm. If you don't do macro the 60mm though of reasonable price has slow AF and perhaps a little bulkier than need be. A compact 50mm companion to the new 35mm f/2 makes a lot of sense.