jlmphotos

No I'm using lightroom cc 2015.9 and camera raw 9.9

If you go to my profile you'll read that I am absolutely NOT into street photography.  In this image, I do love the tone of it, and the gritty details.  But to me, there is no subject -- again I'll say I don't know sh*t about street photography so just take that with a grain of salt. I kinda wish the pole wasn't there, but on the other hand it draws my eye in to it's color or lack of and the texture of the old posters.  That part of the image I like very much, the subject matter?  Meh,  I'm not a people person.  If I had taken it, I would have waited for the humans to go away

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.

I use a no name brand I picked up on Amazon.  It has a digital display, uses AAA batteries, has an on/off switch, and does time-lapse as well.  I think it cost under $20.00 US

As you'll note in my signature down below i own various lenses.  Each has it's own filter size.  However, having come over to the light side from Nikon Full-frame all my filters are 77mm in size.  So, I have a step up ring from whatever lens I'm using, up to the77mm.  So, on my 18-55 which is 58mm, I have a step-up ring from 58-77, etc. etc.
 
As far a filter brands I've always gravitated to the Singh-Ray brand.  They are pricey, but are just amazing.  They also offer outstanding service and/or replacement policy, which I put to good use once.   Other brands could be Hoya,  BW, Tiffen. I have a Hoya Circular Polarizer that is older than dirt and it still works and does an amazing job!
 
To me, the main thing is to standardize on a size (77mm in my case) then build around that.  Many folks, and you'll probably here from many here use the Lee system.  To me they are way to over-priced, and almost never in stock.  
 
If you are planning on using any filter with a wide-angle lens, try and get 'thin' filters, and thin step-up rings;  doing so will avoid the vignetting where you can see the filter in the four corners of your image.  This is an advantage to using the larger, square Lee (and other) system but again, easily preventable.
 
Whatever you get:  GET QUALITY filters from some of the brands I mentioned above. You've spent hundreds and hundreds on Fuji lenses, don't cheap out on polarizers (or any other filter you place in front of your tack sharp lenses).  If you take care of them, they will last a long, long time.  
 
Hope that helps.  Good Luck

I would love a 5:4 crop in addition to the current 3:2 crop.  I just love the look of those files for some inexplicable reason.
This can be done via firmware and, if it's anything like my D800e 5:4 mode I will lose some megapixels - on the D800 it goes from 36 to 30 so I would anticipate the 24.3MP would drop to 20?  My guess.  But I would love that crop... Both in JPEG and RAW

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. 

Absolutely!

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. 

I would love a 5:4 crop in addition to the current 3:2 crop.  I just love the look of those files for some inexplicable reason.
This can be done via firmware and, if it's anything like my D800e 5:4 mode I will lose some megapixels - on the D800 it goes from 36 to 30 so I would anticipate the 24.3MP would drop to 20?  My guess.  But I would love that crop... Both in JPEG and RAW

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.

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. 

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. 

No damage whatsoever!  None.  Not even scratched.  And it all works just fine.

There is nothing wrong with your camera.
 
The oddities of various metering systems perfectly normal.
 
The number of variables for a proper 18% gray all through the scene, plus algorithms related to camera settings, ensures a variety of "proper exposures".
 
I can not stress this enough to X-T2 shooters: 
 
You are in charge. It is up to you to "drive" the camera with exposure compensation.
 
This is a professional tool for people who understand metering, and it's abilities and limitations.
 
It is rare that any photograph I take doesn't have some sort of exposure compensation in it.
 
THAT IS NORMAL.
 
Short of an external hand held incident light meter (vs a reflected light meter) cameras ALWAYS give slight variations.
 
These are not bugs being posted on the forums about exposure errors, it's people who misunderstand what the tool is capable of.
 
It's not the camera folks.
 
Use that exposure compensation dial...a lot....make conscious decisions about exposure.
 
The cameras of today (WYSIWYG) and histograms provide YOU THE USER with information, but the final exposure is yours to make based upon that info.
 
Use the dial.
 
DRIVE YOUR CAMERA.
 
Peter
 
PS: if you don't know what 18% gray (grey) is in regards to photography look it up. It is the key to understanding photography exposure.

Hey,  I use both my X-T1 with the 18-55, 35, Zeiss 12 and the 55-200 for landscapes, cityscapes, etc.  I love it.  I've printed up to 24 x 18" (so far) and the results are phenomenal and I AM A PIXEL PEEPER. LOL
 
I also shoot with the Nikon D800, but "most" of the time I use the X-T1 -- even for stock images.  I then process them in LR 5.0, though I've used both Iridient Developer, and Silkypix.  But LR 5.x has really improved the process.

I own both the 18-55 and the 35 1.4.  I purchased both of these with my X-E1 back in February 2013.  The 18-55 is my "don't leave home without it lens" and the 35 1.4, though not used as often, pretty much goes with me anywhere and everywhere.  
The 18-55 is ultra-sharp, it is light, it is small, and it is fairly fast at F2.8-F4 variable aperture.  With OIS, it's pretty darn near perfect for me.  You can check out my blog in the signature block below to see how I've used it in pretty much any weather, anywhere.  
Just with the 18-55 alone, I've "kept" not taken mind you, over 30,000 images (per my LR collection);  many, many are for stock sales. 
 
The 35 1.4 is just a gorgeous lens.  Yes, you'll read it's not ultra-sharp in the corners, blah blah blah, but I will never, ever do away with that lens as long as I have an X-camera.  It just gives images a certain look, and the fast aperture helps tremendously in low light, and the bokeh is amazing. 
It's a b*tch to lock focus at times, but when it does, it's cutting edge.  
There was a post here somewhere a while back asking what are your two favorite lenses -- I chose as my #1 the 18-55, and the 16 1.4 as the number 2, but the 35 1.4 i an amazing piece of glass --- and it's a looker as well.

I agree - both are fantastic lenses. My 35mm is nice and sharp at 1.4, with the only exception being objects near the close focus distance... for some reason it gets a bit hazy in that scenario and is not as sharp. but anything further away is fantastic.

I own both the 18-55 and the 35 1.4.  I purchased both of these with my X-E1 back in February 2013.  The 18-55 is my "don't leave home without it lens" and the 35 1.4, though not used as often, pretty much goes with me anywhere and everywhere.  
The 18-55 is ultra-sharp, it is light, it is small, and it is fairly fast at F2.8-F4 variable aperture.  With OIS, it's pretty darn near perfect for me.  You can check out my blog in the signature block below to see how I've used it in pretty much any weather, anywhere.  
Just with the 18-55 alone, I've "kept" not taken mind you, over 30,000 images (per my LR collection);  many, many are for stock sales. 
 
The 35 1.4 is just a gorgeous lens.  Yes, you'll read it's not ultra-sharp in the corners, blah blah blah, but I will never, ever do away with that lens as long as I have an X-camera.  It just gives images a certain look, and the fast aperture helps tremendously in low light, and the bokeh is amazing. 
It's a b*tch to lock focus at times, but when it does, it's cutting edge.  
There was a post here somewhere a while back asking what are your two favorite lenses -- I chose as my #1 the 18-55, and the 16 1.4 as the number 2, but the 35 1.4 i an amazing piece of glass --- and it's a looker as well.

I'm not a full-hearted fanboy of Fuji or anyone else (I don't think)  but I just ripped them a new butthole on my blog not so much with the focus issue, but other smaller issues I found, in my first stock outing with the -T2.  It's on my blog if you care to read it.  I don't normally do this, because I don't want to seem like I'm promoting my blog, but it does in fact relate to the X-T2 and a few issues I found.

DPreview is like that. They simply haven't got enough sympathy to this brand. So, never mind the bollocks!

Every camera will have it's pro's and con's, there will never be an ideal camera for everyone and everything. And reviews are still just a person's opinion... If you want to know if a camera is good for you, rent one and try it out.

You got me wrong.
 
I am  in favor of the 50-230 OVER the 55-200mm, I find the advantages of the latter compare to the first, absolutely negligible 

I've never used the XC series, but I can definitely attest to the GREATNESS of the 55-200 lens.  It's my go-to for long(er) shots.  I prefer the 55-200 over the 50-140 due to it's size, weight, and a somewhat longer reach.
 
If you can afford it, go for the 55-200