jlmphotos

Ha! I learned computers and computing using 80 column punch cards!! And I also learned to never drop a box loaded with over 1,000 of them as they tend to scatter. And the machine won't read them and will error out if not loaded in order. This brings back some seriously great memories! When I was courting my spouse, I would type her letters using the keypunch machine!! I still have those saved somewhere. Corny I know...

You know what: here are the links to my blog about the 55-200: You can be the judge. First Post Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth And Last for now

I don't know where you get the impression the 55-200 is not sharp. I use that lens professionally and it is tack sharp. I have several blog posts about this lens which you can find in my signature block. For me, I switched from Nikon to Fuji to save weight and size so the 50-140 2.8, which would have replaced my Nikon 70-200 2.8 "should" have been the way to go, except for the size and weight, but I found the 55-200 cheaper, lighter, and tack sharp to boot so I went that route. The 100-400, if Thought i needed it I would probably rent it -- As I seriously doubt I would find a use for it in my normal shooting. Maybe you might consider renting it from lens rental or another outfit.

I don't think they (PBs sharpening settings) are out of date at all. What's out of date? How? That's silly. It's still the same cameras: X-T1 and X-T2. I'm a busy semi-pro, I don't have the time to diddle with Capture one or any thing else at this point in time. My goal is to shoot, edit, distribute and sell images. Period. Not play with software. I find C1 to be to difficult to use - but to give it it's fair shake I only gave it a week or so before I had to get back to work.

I see a lot of images here, which are gorgeous btw, taken with a 50mm lens. What was used? The new 50?

Good to know. Last night I purchased the latest version of Iridient Developer. That software is fantastic! Even though I'm a lightroom user, ID does come in handy some times. I've been using various versions of Iridient since I had my X-E1 way back when. Sales was great. Support is great. And Brian the developer is an awesome person. With regards to the raw upgrade I don't shoot in compressed mode on my X-T2. Cards are cheap. I'd rather shoot the full size, 50mb image. I just get the feeling the compression is messing with something. There are no freebies out there....

X-Pro 2 and a back up body. I would pack the 16 1.4 (which is one of two of my "don't leave home without it lens next to the 18-55), then the 23mm, and the 56mm. If I owned the 50-140, which I do not (I own the fabulous 55-200) I would leave that beast at home. Have a wonderful trip! Maybe you'll post some images here?

If you've been shooting for 40 years, as I have, then you know that "way back then" we did not have water resistant, water proof anything -- except maybe for the old Nikonos. I used my Minolta camera bodies (which still function to this day) and my Minolta lenses - from 16mm 2.8 Fisheye, to a Celestron 1000mm Telephoto in ALL weather. I lived in Anchorage AK, and shot in rain, fog, snow, blizzards, you name it, I shot in it. One of my Minolta's even took a swim with the fish - my SR-T101, while shooting a beaver pond. The zoom lens was ruined but the body? Still works to this day. Yes, these were basically manual cameras, not a computer, but still. With regards to lenses the only WR lens I own is the 16 1.4. A fantastic lens. However, I have used ALL my lenses in ice storms, rain, mist, and I've had no issues. Once I used my 18-55 on my X-T1 while photographing a water fight between my grandkids. One of them shot a blast of water from a water canon directly into the lens itself. The only problem I had was a bit of condensation on the lens, and when I removed the lens from the camera I found some water on the camera flange - which I very quickly dried up. I then put the lens back on and kept on shooting. I've also shot in the Florida Keys, Dry Tortugas, heat and humidity abound and have not had a single issue. So, to answer your question IMHO the WR is irrelevant to me. But that's just me. Some folks fear for the equipment, I do not. I use it, and I expect it to perform and last. Again, that's just me.

Wow. That's all I got.

I hope this isn't the case - where Fuji stops the development of high-end glass for the x series but I have to ask myself: What else can they develop? Also, I'm so glad I bough the 1.4 series of lenses -- I was looking at the 50 F2, pulled the trigger then canceled the order. For some reason I just really, really like the faster lenses as I shoot in low light a lot. That's just me though. For those new to Fuji X, it may make sense to purchase the F2 series of lenses, heck you can get TWO F2 lenses for the price of one 1.4 it seems. I could be wrong. But, for the time being, you'd have to pry my cold, dead hands off my 16 1.4, and my 35 1.4

The 16-55 is a tank! In my case, way to heavy. I would suggest the 18-55 which in all honesty is my go-to lens, but it sounds like you may be in line for the 18-135. Though aperture wise a tad slower than the 18-55 (which is my don't leave home without it lens), the 18-135 will give you a very nice range to work with on the trail and around town. The second body with the 14 and you'll be all set!

Great for you! I also agree the Fuji lenses are getting massive. The 16-55, 50-140, even the 56 1.2 -- way to big for me. I left Nikon to reduce bulk and weight. Yet, I've built up a tidy collection of lenses, that all serve a purpose. However, unless I'm traveling via auto, not all of these lenses leave the house; if they do, I'll break them down into one of my three different bags I own. I do not like to carry to much weight with me so I try to stick to my 16 1.4, and the 18-55 as a staple - must have - lenses. Around that kit, depending what I'm shooting, I'll throw in the 23 1.4, OR (not both) 35 1.4, or maybe the 55-200. Again, it depends on what I'm after.

Ilford 50 was my go-to film choice back in my Mamiya 645 days. What gorgeous BW that pumped out!

Subjective: Yes. But also objective as my images are stock images and are being sold worldwide. I can't afford to be subjective.

I must be missing something. I've had my X-T2 since October 2016. Amazon has them in stock. What's the big deal?

Nice One!

I have considered shooting just jpeg. But I like to cover all my bases so I shoot both jpeg fine + uncompressed raw. Yes, it takes up more card and disk space but it does allow me/you the freedom to make changes - even in LR. I have found the profiles for the Fuji camera in LR come pretty darn close, if not exact (for me) when I compare a jpeg and a raw side by side. Even though you can adjust a jpeg file to a certain extent I love the fact that with the raw file, I can swap the profile say from Provia, my go-to fuji profile to say Classic Chrome, or something else. You can also process the raw files in camera, where you can't do that with the jpeg. Now, one thing you won't here me say here or anywhere else is that I shoot in raw so I can "fix it later". to me, that is a waste of valuable time and a big no-no when I can nail it in the camera whenever possible - hence, the jpeg. Once I import in LR, and I can see the images side-by-side I will make the determination whether I'll keep the raw file or the jpeg. Since I shoot stock images I normally maintain the raw file and chuck the jpeg. However, when I photograph family and family events I do still shoot in raw+jpeg, but I find, that if I did my job correctly, I can usually just keep the jpeg and chuck the raw file. Sometimes (actually many times) I screw up the exposure, or white balance and have to use the raw.. The X-T2 uncompressed are 50mb, no small amount, these are very comparable with my D800e raw files (lossless compressed). I do not use the lossless compressed on the Fuji. Just a quirk on my part. As I said, card space, and HD space are relatively cheap. I have a Drobo running 16TB of HD space, and a RAID1 WD system running another 8TB of data - the hard drives are under 100.00 bucks US ea for 4TB or more. With regards to SD cards, over the last several years I've accumulated 25 or so cards in the 16G and 32G variety. I pick up a few whenever they are on sale. I can shoot in JPEG+Raw a total of just over 10,000 images before I have to reload. Again: cards are cheap, and so are hard drives. So unless you are a super human, world class shooter who doesn't make mistakes, or a casual care-free photographer I would seriously consider shooting jpeg fine+ raw. Then make your final decision as to which file to keep or discard after you've imported and reviewed your images. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I would LOVE to see the 8-16mm F2.8. It's gonna be Yuuuuuuuge! Just Yuuuuuuuuge. Seriously though I'd love to consider it, but I passed on the 16-55 and the 50-140 due to weight and size. So we shall see what this one looks/feels like.

Oh my. I am planning a trip there next August/September. Love the images!!f Would love to see more.

For productivity: Lightroom. Sorry. Hate to beat a dead horse as the saying goes, but LR is, iMHO one of the better tools for image management, and processing. When I go on the road, I could come back with 3-5,000 images. My southwest stop trip which took a long time I came back with almost 11,000 raw and jpeg images. And LR, if you know how to cull effectively, is one of the better tools out there. If ultimate speed is your thing, the photo mechanic would be the way to go. Except, it's not a management/catalog/library program -- If I used it, I would still catalog, keyword, etc in LR anyway.

See my other post here regarding this topic.

You guys really need to stop saying sh*t like that. It's not useful or helpful to ANYONE. At all. LR works just fine. It's a matter of what sharpening to use. I've been a LR user since BETA 1.0. And have been using it with my Fuji files since 2013. Also, I've used LR going back to 2007 on my Fujifilm S1, and S2 Pro dSLR bodies shooting RAF files as well. Please provide some constructive help. Like: Hey fella, go check out Pete Bridgewoods blog. He has an outstanding post on sharpening raf files there that took my stock images from an abysmal acceptance rate of around 86% when I stopped using my Nikons, and switched to Fuji, up to 98% of images submitted--All Fuji. As a matter of fact, here are TWO links from his website on sharpening raw files: Go here, for X-T2 and X-Pro2 files. And go to this blog post for the X-T1 and X-Pro1 raw files. Hope this helps.

Neither. I opt for the 18-55. I've been using the 18-55 since February 2013 and have used it in EVERY type of weather. No problems. It's light, and sharp. Done.

I have the tubes, and the 55-200 but I've only used the 11mm extension tube with either my 35 or the 18-55. I'll have to test that with the 55-200. Never even thought about doing that.

Why not just get a video camera? Seriously. I would rather fuji work on developing better still photo features, like my 5:4 crop request, and other lenses than screw around with video. But, that's just me -- I have yet to to press the record button on either my 3 year old X-T1, or my -2... So, take that with a grain of salt.