MSW

I noticed that too, but its not happening any more for reasons I don't know why. I suspect it was more LR "thing" than Fuji.

The only thing I can nit pick with regard to 4.0 is that I was hoping for +/-2 stops to be an option for exposre bracketing in the drive menu. Maybe this is something that FW can't change. Not that big a deal anyway since I've nearly gotten past any interest HDR triplets.

Also sells as Neewer NW320 on Amazon. After a few days with it It appears to work the way it should. Can't comment yet on sturdiness and longevity. The size is appropriate to a X-E2. The printed manual is OK if you are not too fusy about the English "translation".

I have used a Nikon 105mm AF-D with a Fotdiox adapter. It's very good but heavy and bulky compared to the 60mm. If you intend to handhold, I think you may get better results with the Fuji lens. 1:1 is not really all that practical handheld. If you are going to use a tripod, the Nikon will get you down to 1:1. One feature of the Nikon I discovered from testing is that the sharpest aperture is f/14 which is great for DoF (the usual rule of thumb that f/5.6-o-f/8 doesn't seem to apply for this lens.) Don't go past f/14 - the image deteriorates very quickly by f/16.

Ditto that. And don't make it bigger or heavier than E2!

I have seen a comparison between the 55-200mm and the 50-230mm. It plotted MTF curves for each. It looked like the 55-200mm was significantly better and that is what the writer made a point of saying. However, the vertical scale did not start at zero - had it done so the curves would have all but indistinguishable. You wouldn't even have to go to that extreme - just plotting the with a modestly longer but not zero base scale would have brought the two curves very close. As far as i'm concerned, the difference in IQ isn't important 99% of the time and is a small price to pay for lower price, lower weight and less bulk.

Thanks for the suggestions.

I you want it near exclusively for macro and you are fairly hardcore about the macro go with the Nikon 105mm. But get and older model not the current "G" version which costs more and doesn't have an aperture ring. If you are more interested in "very close up" rather than "seriously macro" go with the Fuji 60mm as it is much more versatile as well as lighter and smaller and has AF. I find the 60mm is all I need most of the time but I use a 105mm AF-D occasionally (the only thing Nikon I did not sell) and discovered with the help of Reikan's FoCal software that max sharpness is at F/14 not F/8 as is commonly assumed. If this is not a fluke but is true of all AF-Ds or even other versions it is worth knowing sind DoF is a big deal when doing macro. Don't entirely dismiss the 1:2 max magnification on the Fuji. That,s what the early Nikon 105mm Micro had (I think they came with an optional extension ring). Fuji 1:1 came later.

I understand that mirrorless technology and X-Trans technology is new and has growing pains so I'm pretty tolerant about some of the limitations related to those. BUT Fuji really needs to sit someone down and re-look at lens caps both front and rear. This isn't a show stopper, mind you, but when I compare them what I had come to expect from my Nikons (now sold) they kind of suck. In the case of Nikon they went on easily and stayed on. Fuji's front caps take an extra fiddle and twitch to get on and then pop off if not just right. Alternatively, they can get jammed on in a way that they don't want to come off. The 39mm ones are the worst. The rear caps just slip on and can slip back off if you just look at then funny. The front caps also don't seem to co-exist very happily with the lens hoods. On some lenses they like 35mm f1.4 or 18mm they are basically incompatible with each other, The rubber slip-on for use with the hoods fly away in a mild breeze. I like to reverse the hoods when I pack up a lense for travel or storage. For some reason on and off in reverse is just plain awkward. This is, I admit, not very important and doesn't affect the photos. Its just an annoying itch I hope Fuji addresses one of these days.

Although, I'm satisfied with the X-E2 anything that improves continuous shooting is to the good. The info out on FW 4.0 mostly concerns auto focus. I'll have to see how it works. I'm also glad to read that the Q menu will be more customizable. I hope flash compensation will be a little more accessible. Nobody pays attention to me but I really wish there was an option in the menu one could select to make all the purely video menu items disappear, ditto non-raw shooting items.If you need them suddenly you would just reverse the selection. Nothing in this is directed at Fuji per se as Nikon, Canon Sony etc all have menus jammed full of stuff I virtually never use. Re X-PRO2: It got heavier and bulkier. Not by much but that's the wrong direction. Per the published spec it is now heavier than the Nikon D3300 and D5500. Probably corresponding Canon bodies as well. I hope this will NOT be the pattern for the x-E3 as much of X-E? series appeal lies in the modest bulk and weight. .

You may be right about the Samyang. The DOF is so deep that I usually don't bother to stop it down much so I may not have noticed. Try this URL for a list to the good and the bad http://kolarivision.com/articles/lens-hotspot-list/ FYI: According to LifePixel the problem arises from the internal flat black coating on the lens barrel. Some coating materials which absorb visible light are highly reflective of IR This may be why the X-T1 IR is still on hold. Perhaps Fuji is researching IR absorptive coatings

50mm Meyer-Optic Goerlitz f/1.8. Construction feels better than my Helios. Bokeh is good but does NOT give to soap bubble effect of the 100mm. In fact its best to avoid out of focus pin-lights, christmas lights etc -- the nice round disk you were hoping for seems to generate some odd artifacts. (side not: the cinematographer that does the "iZombie" series may be using a video adapted version as the OOF disks have the same notch at 7-o'clock on the disks)

Number one over-riding concern. DO NOT add weight or bulk like we just saw in the X-PRO2 info.

I forgot to mention various Nikon (with an adapter). Don't get the "G" - no aperture ring- besides the pre-G non AF are usually very inexpensive on E-bay.

Helios 44M-4 58mm f/2 Meyer-Optik Goerlitz Oreston 50mm f/1.8 Samyang/Rokinon 8mm fisheye & 12mm

This is an ancient debate. In the days of 35mm film there were endless discussion about which was the more natural field of view, 50mm or 35mm (which were equivalent to what you are talking about). Going back to Fuji's, the 35mm corresponds more to the field of view you get from eyes when you don't swing them back and forth, while 23mm is more like what you see with your eyes when you move them around some what. (The previous statement is subject much argument!) It really comes down to individual preferences. If you have the 16-50 or 18-55 try setting the focal length to 23mm for a few days and shoot as much as you have time for, then do the same for 35mm. YUse a little square of duct tape to keep the focal length in place, Compare results and your personal experience.

1-60mm. Everything is fine as is except speed up the AF. 2-Add to the XC series with emphasis on light and compact: A- a modest range wide zoom, say XC 12-20mm. B: something like a XC 18-100mm this is a tremendously useful and practical all purpose lens (it's also the only lens I really miss since selling my Nikon to by a Fuji). 3-XF18mm f/1.4. Optical quality more in line with 23mm and 35mm neighbors. This plays the role of 28mm on film SLR or on full frame. I find the angle of view quite useful but it seems like its been every manufacture's stepchild even back in the film days.

1-Same controls layout as X-E2 2-But expand what can be assigned to Fn buttons. Could start with flash compensation 3-Same sensor as x-Pro2 4-Expand what can be assigned to custom settings in Q-menu 5-Exposure bracketing expanded optionally to +/- 2 stops 6-Continue to improve speed and focus tracking for continuous shooting. Further reduce the time the EVF freezes--this is very important because even a very quick freeze is psychologically confusing when tracking irregular motion.

I have not used either of the cameras he compares. However, he says the Mk4 is not significantly different from the Mk3 and I have used that. I also have an X-E1 and a X-E2 which usually get used with an XC 16-50mm. The Sony although it is very good is not in the same league despite what Rockwell says. The Sony uses a 1" sensor and I seem to recall KR spent some effort a couple of months back trashing 1" sensors. If you only look a photos via Facebook on your mobile phone or laptop even the snaps from mt iPhone 5 have great IQ. Some specifics about the Sony he doesn't really address (some other reviewers seem to miss these too): --Though small, it is NOT a pocket camera in sense of being able to slip in to an ordinary shirt pocket (cargo pockets with accordion pleat don't count). The Canon S100/120 series, the Lumix LF1 and Fuji XQ1 are pocket cameras - the Fuji just isn't. It is also surprisingly heavy for its size which can be an issue if you mange to cram it into a pocket! -- The popup EVF is not so great in that the diopter adjustment gets moved out of adjustment way too easily. The up position lets too much ambient light in around your face that on bright sunny days it's not much better than the LCD screen -- The menu structure just sucks. Far too many options (that you are likely never to use) to hunt through to find the one you need. Probably why KR makes a big deal about recallable presets! All devices including cameras have tradeoffs. A useful review identifies these. A useful comparative review compares products that address nearly similar user applications. KR's review is like comparing a SmartCar to a Prius. The XF16-55mm f/2.8 is a rather specialized item. An example of a useful comparison would be Nikon D750+24-70mm f/2.8 vs Fuji X-T10+16-55mm f/2.8 since a recent interview quoted a Fuji manager that their target is to get image results from the APS-C sensor that are equal to full-frame.

I have 12x18 prints on my wall, one taken by an E-X1 + XC 16-50mm and one by a Nikon D7100 + Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 DX. Both on a tripod with good lighting. The subject is different but still with your nose close to the glass studying at the details the Nikon shows no advantage. The XC series is highly under rated in my opinion. I have a fantasy that Fuji will make a XC 16-105 someday.

XC series: Rename and move the 27mm to XC where it belongs. 16-105mm (I'll settle for 18-105mm). I found this the best all around zoom in my Nikon days. Make it XC light-compact-inexpensive. Perfect match-up for X-E1/2/3. You can travel around the world with one body+lens. 10-18mm. Lighter, compacter and a little slower than the XF 10-24 -- Make it XC light-compact-inexpensive.. XF series: 10mm (or even 8 or 9 !!) prime. NO fisheyes. Loose the AF (who needs it at this focal length?) but keep the rest of the electrical connections. Non-pancake 18mm. F/1.4 or 1.8. This is a equiv to 28mm from film days, a fundamentally classis focal length that deserve the full-Fuji, Less weird lens hood too. 60mm with faster AF. Macro-zoom. Approx 50-120mm. Doesn't need to be all that fast nor have a constant max aperture. Magnification ratio 1:1.3. (APS-C equivalent of Nikon's 70-180. Was allowed to use one briefly -- there is a reason that these 10-20 year old items sell for $1,000 plus on eBay!)

Adapting older lenses need not be limited to antique Soviet era lenses. If you are transitioning from Canon or Nikon but on a limited budget an adapter can let you use some of your old lenses until you can afford a Fuji equivalent. An example would be using a Nikon 50mm F/1.4 D until you can afford Fuji's 56mm. There are also some lenses with capabilities which no Fuji lens matches yet. For example my Fuji's 60mm which I really like is more a "demi-macro" than a true macro like Nikon's 105mm micro. Fuji has a true macro on the way, but until then an adapted Nikon 105mm is useful. Or if you are one of those rare people (I'm not one of them) who uses a tilt-shift lens you can either keep your old Nikon body just for that or use an adapter with a Fuji body. Since T-S lenses can't autofocus anyway you loose zero functionality. None of the scenarios above involve compromising on IQ.

Modify the OVF or EVF so that following rapid action sports or events is practical.. My standard is dog agility trials which are much tougher to follow than human events: 20-30 mph in a small area and the ability make nearly instantaneous 90 degree direction changes. I don't care how Fuji accomplishes this capability, I just want results that will let me sell my Nikon. Lesser request: Color selectable focus peaking ( choice of white, blue or red will be sufficient.)

If you would be willing to use a Nikon adapter rather than M42 (Fotasy or Fotodiox), Nikon's 50mm F/1.4 D (note "D" not "G") is very good. "Good" as in one of Nikon's best. You can find them used for a reasonable price. The combination of the adapter and the lens is not all that heavy or bulky. I focus wide open using peaking, then count the clicks on the aperture ring to stop it down as desired.

Which ever one does the best job of tracking action. Horse races, dog agility events (unless you have tried, you have no idea how quickly a border collie moves!) and the like. Then I would no longer have a motive for retaining my Nikon.