olli

The banana seller on Taft Avenue, Pasay City (X-E2, XF35)

I would very much love it but can't really afford it given that it would be a bit of an indulgence. I've been watching the used departments and KEH in the hope that it will start appearing in sufficient numbers to drive the price down as owners swap it for the 16 but no luck so far.

Absolutely agree with Casa and Milandro. If this is true then it's hard to see the point. Realistically how many people are going to pay the undoubtedly high price of a lens like this for the sake of one stop? As well as the existing and forthcoming Fuji lenses around this focal length there is also the Zeiss lens. How about giving us some compact versions of some other lengths first like a 16/2.8 or a 50/1.8?

I suppose it depends on how you define 'noisy' - mine makes a little more noise that the 18-55 but it's still very quiet relative to the shutter noise or DSLR style flapping mirrors, just a slight buzzing noise. Outside of a silent room no-one is likely to hear it except you.

So getting back to the original topic, I would like to seen a decent flash system. While I understand that some people might need/want an all singing, all dancing set up I would also like to see a set of options for flash that also caters to those of us who want something more effective than the current option but don't want to spend a fortune. Lenses - in my dream world Fuji would make a 16-35 zoom for APS, high quality but also relatively compact, f2 or f2.8 if needed to keep it compact. Perhaps a 16-70; and an f4 version of the 50-150, with a corresponding reduction in weight and size. Cameras - as X-E3 please. Anyway you like. Just make sure if had a better or interchangeable eyecup and that I can set LCD/EVF preferences separately for shooting and playback.

I have no idea how my zooms and primes compare because in real life usage there is little difference and I see no point in setting up artificial shooting conditions to work it out. The only question that matters is whether the output is good enough for me. If it's good enough for me, it's good enough. It may in some technical or theoretical sense be the case that primes, on the whole, produce slightly better IQ than zooms, but in real life use this is largely irrelevant. Of course there may be a handful of people for whom absolute IQ is critical but this is a tiny minority of photographers. The only time I have ever seen the difference in practice is when I visited an exhibition of wildlife photography. It was clear that, specifically, images shot on telephoto prime lenses (400-600mm) were visibly sharper and 'cleaner' than images shot on long tele zooms when the images are printed more that 48" or 120cm wide, but that's a very specific set of circumstances and you can't generalise from that with regard to practical usage. What was also of interest from that exhibition was that when creating these very large (up to 72"/180cm) prints, both pixel count and sensor size had a greater effect than the type of lens used. In terms of sensor size there was little real difference between APS and FF, but there was a huge difference between both of these and the one image that had been shot with medium format (specifically a Phase One 65MP back.)

Another from Shwedagon Pagoda in Rangoon (X-E2, XF18-55)

If this is true the best aspect of it from my point of view is that it would seem to rule out 'full frame', which in turn confirms a long term commitment to APS. Having switched from Sony to Fuji precisely because Sony more or less abandoned APS to pursue FF, that's good news.

Public transport in Metro Manila. Jeepneys and trikes beneath the overhead line of the rapid transit system on Taft Avenue in Pasay City (X-E2, XF18-55)

Thanks. I know this street quite well since I walk it regularly. I'd noticed the painting on the wall before so it was a matter of waiting for something interesting to pass and hoping that there would be a break in the traffic (something of a miracle in Manila). That it was an ice cream man was serendipity.

I think the whole story of Fuji's commitment to the user by improving existing cameras via firmware updates is oversold. Yes, they do offer good and useful firmware updates from time to time but these are driven entirely by commercial criteria. The reason the X-T1 gets multiple comprehensive upgrades is because it is the best selling and most profitable camera in the Fuji lineup. It makes business sense to focus resources on that camera. The reason for the most recent upgrade to the X-T1 is to ensure that the more profitable camera is not seen as inferior to the newly released X-T10. The FW update is about ensuring that people who are choosing between the X-T1 and X-T10 won't discount the X-T1 because of its inferior AF system. FW updates for the X-E2 presumably follow the same logic but it's hard at times to know what Fuji is thinking. The AF updates were most welcome, the CC update seems to be mostly about marketing since the CC profile seemed to be heavily marketed and pushed online as connecting with the company's history in film. On the other hand, from the time the X-E2 was released reviewers and users have complained about the inability to set EVF/LCD options independently for shooting and playback. You would think that this would be a relatively straightforward thing to correct yet it has never happened. I'm happy that Fuji does from time to time upgrade things on my camera, but I don't believe for a minute that they are operating on anything other than a purely commercial and business calculation when they decide what to do.

In the absence of an X-E3 in this scenario I would reluctantly go with an X-T2.

Thank you for this constructive and helpful post!

Congratulations on the new camera. I'm also using the X-E2. Nice shot of the aquarium - it looks like those sharks(?) were co-operating. As an aquarium fan I may have to put Okinawa on my 'to visit' list now. It looks impressive.

The ice cream man doing his rounds on Arnaiz Avenue, Pasay City (X-E2, XF35)

Some wishful thinking on my part - they'll produce an X-E3 but they'll call it an X-P(ro)20. This will be to the X-P(ro)2 what the X-T10 is to the X-T1. Right, Fuji chaps, I've sorted that out for you. Get on with it

Hello Edo. I'm going to be in Jakarta this weekend visiting friends. It's my first time there but I won't have a lot of time for photography. Do you have any suggestions for must see places in the city to shoot? Any thoughts would be most welcome. Olli

I don't disagree, but the key phrase here is "on a major trip". If the OP is visiting somewhere he will not be again for a long time or perhaps ever, then I assume he is interested in doing more than practising an art form. I assume he wants to take creative photographs but also to take photographs that are a record and a memory of the visit. In that case it is, in my view, better to give yourself more options.

And Olympus do the same with the PEN's decidedly entry level these days and the OM-D's the 'higher' end cameras.

Will you have a second camera? If not, I think you would be better with the zoom. If you're shooting cathedrals and churches with the 14mm what happens when a great scene opens up in the street in front of you? 14mm won't be much use and by the time you change lenses the scene might be gone. At least with the zoom you have an option to get other kinds of shots without changing lenses. Also, I don't know where you're travelling from, but if this is a major trip it's not a time to be worrying about the difference in weight between what is a small lens and a smaller lens. The 10-24 is only 100 grams more than your 18-55, and less than 200 grams more than the 14. Do you really want to limit your options on a major trip for the sake of 200 grams? (If you are more familiar with imperial measurement that's about 7 ounces - a lot less than the bottle of water you might be carrying around with you.)

I can't help thinking this must be some kind of spoof, yet that website appears to be for real. Truly bizarre.

Changing the focal length changes the kind of photographs you take. Even the difference between 16 and 23 (or 23 and 35) changes the way you see street scenes. If you're willing to adjust the way you shoot to accommodate, or exploit, a different focal length then the 16 might well work for you. If you do want to start shooting a little wider why not get the 18 for now and see how it goes. For me, 16 is just a bit too wide for the way I like to shoot on the streets. Right now the 23 is the one I use most.

Manila Bay, Pasay City (X-E2, XF23)

Thanks vman. I'll be around for the first part of December so if you're going to be there then I'd be happy to meet up.

John Hancock Center, Chicago (X-E2, XF18-55)