Maurice

I don't have one of those, because that would be a crazy thing to do imho. The Fujinon has true optics of the quality that you find in any other Fujinon lens, while chinese knock-offs will more likely have lensbaby toy lens quality. A small increase in FoV is not worth such a loss in image quality of the whole image. Why get an expensive camera like this only to heavily degrade its quality with toys, no? If you need the extra FoV i would recommend turning you camera vertical, shoot 2-3 images with a 1/3 overlap, and put them together in Lightroom 6 or invest in Autopano Pro. Both of these options are at least half the price of the adapter, don't require any extra bulk to your camera, and not to mention good software to do a lot of other things. Or get the real thing!

Of course not, they simply numbered the position of the dial so that it's easier to see what you're doing, but a different lens will have different values to those numbers of course. It should have the full aperture range that you normally do. And to be clear, this is not the SpeedBooster, so it doesn't do anything other than adapting it to Fuji X-mount, though with the metabones quality built and precision.

Indeed, it seems to be everything i hoped for !

Found this place where you can make nice graphs: http://howmuchblur.com/#compare-1.5x-56mm-f1.2-and-1.5x-90mm-f2-and-1.5x-35mm-f1.4-and-1.5x-23mm-f1.4-and-1.5x-16mm-f1.4-and-1.5x-14mm-f2.8-and-1.5x-10mm-f4-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject

Lucky you ! Jealous me !

14mm is a lot wider than 16mm, and 16mm is noticeably wider than 18mm. Personally i find 10mm a little too wide and that can be a little distracting from the subject. While the 10-24 can of course go all the way to 24mm too, it is a bit too large for my taste. It really depends on your wishes, but i would want to keep it compact for travel, and don't mind a little selective framing when necessary. But really, 14mm (21mm equiv) already is beyond wide. Just try it out in a store you'll see. For any other APSC system or MFT there isn't even a native prime this wide available except for third party options. And speaking of .. there is that 12mm from Samyang/Rokinon. This post below is about IR filters, but you can actually see the difference in FoV between 14 and 18 very well, as i assume they were taken from the same spot: http://fujixsystem.blogspot.nl/p/fuji-infrared-lens-tests.html

I think you're looking at the roadmap where 'time' is TOP to BOTTOM. ... and may be confusing it with the one where 'time' is LEFT to RIGHT:

You can get close with a 35 and MCEX11 alright, but you can ONLY get close. The focusing range is very limited, and the focal length is not ideal. With insects it means they will fly away because you need to get too close, and for other things it often means you will be in your own shadow. The 60mm allows you to keep some distance, it is a much more useful focal length for Macro, and it is of course a multipurpose lens that you can use for many other things, it is quite stunning for portraits, and no need to remove any adapter before you can focus to infinity again. There is just no comparison, you do get what you pay for.

Just to clarify the misunderstanding, and x-tc wanting to learn. Rico said: "Btw, exposure needed to be raised by 0.1-0.2 EV in order to accommodate the "analog" contrast curve. That would probably have been different with a light-skinned subject." But of course adjusting a curve will increase or decrease the exposure in parts of the image .. that is the whole idea of a curve. Lower the blacks, and raise the highlights and what you get is contrast. And when you raise or lower the curve more than the average, it can even inadvertently change the overall exposure. Or indeed as in this case when the skin tone is dark, those 'blacks' will get darker as well by using such a 'contrast curve', it happens. So in such a situation you can either compensate by fixing the overall exposure, of you can adjust the curve to fix the error there. And that is fine either way, but the point is was that it's a result of your own actions, and as such not relevant to the topic at hand. (or the camera's metering) Hence my earlier response.

Of course, the JPGs probably show a small difference, as the processor is different. They added LMO and stuff, and likely a few more tweaks. But to base ones decision of a camera on a tiny change in the JPGs is crazy advice if you ask me, ambassador or not. Not to mention that the jpg settings can be tweaked and customized in-camera and probably look virtually the same as they did in the Pro1 anyway. But Aswald said 'because of the sensor', and this is absolutely not true. The only difference of the sensor are the phase-detect pixels that were added, which is a huge advantage of the X-T1 among other things.

That's a nice experiment once or twice, but i don't think you could keep that up for every shot. Norseman. One should really only get a fisheye if they're specifically looking for that effect, not for its wideanlge. If you ask me it only works for 'Fun' things like with a bunch of people in tight spaces: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/olympus-8mm-f-1-8-fisheye-samples-gallery/slideshow Maybe the odd church can be fun with a fisheye once or twice. But i don't think you can really take architecture seriously without a normal planar lens. Samyang's 12mm F2 i assume you're talking about it superb, and not to mention the F2 that might come in really handy without a tripod inside buildings.

Does that yellow winking smiley not look harmless? Not even a little offense indeed. (honestly) You will have to excuse my lack of feelings, it is the Vulcan way.

I believe he's just using a bad filter preset with a curve that happens to raise the highlights or overall exposure a little too much, so had to correct for it, don't know why he bothered telling us this.

I think Fuji would have too high standards/wishes for the optics for it to be bigger than 1", and they wouldn't dare making it 2/3" again i don't think. To make a fast lens for anything bigger than 1" (that is still compact enough) i would guess can only be done with a LOT of software-corrected distortion, lots of vignetting, and no so great corner performance. 1" seems like the optimal compromise.

Sounds like you don't fully understand the nature of Raw. What you ask is impossible without developing some whole new technology specifically for it. That is not worth a silly feature. It's possible for it to be lossless of course, but it would not be a true Raw file. What other manufacturers do this? The X-E1 .. you positive ? Please upload one of those.

parigby - What in gods name are you doing to your (expensive) X-T1 + 56mm setup !? I can't believe this, please give your camera to me and i'll trade you a Canon Powershot.

That is some horribly FALSE advice you got.

That looks great, apart from the blown highlights. Still like to try Iridient some day, but not a Mac user.

The Auto switch according to Fujirumors activates Full Auto with scene recognition. This is like SR+ mode on the X-M and X-A series (i would guess), and this is good because i must say Fuji's scene detection actually works really well. See youtube (like the fujiguys videos) about those cameras for a demonstration. But i've used SR+ (previously EXR) in real life and i know the beginner will be very happy with this, or more likely spoiled by it -not realizing how good it actually is. ;-)

Full image area, at least .. with the crop that i would use. ps. No hard feelings, but flysurfer's edits look horrible to my taste.

Here's my take on it in CO7.2 Express! Sharpening 50 Threshold 0 Noise Reduction 0 Color Noise 75 Contrast 17 Saturation -10 Highlight Recovery 45 Some red color adjustments I'm not a studio guy, but it seems to me the lighting is not ideal, probably could be a lot softer? I would use the Skin Tone (uniformity) tool but my Pro version trial expired.

For reference, the Sony A6000 is €750 now in all the well established retail stores, or €700 in some web-shops. Starting at €800 at launch that's a €50 difference with the €850 X-T10, assuming it will show a similar decline in the months to come. Personally i would gladly pay that difference to have the Fuji, should i have to choose. Not to mention the 16-50mm II that is definitely less of a compromise in performance than Sony's pancake.

Indeed, i have read that too about the phase detect AF. Another Con. That's a lot of Cons for one special effect, you will have something unique that's for sure, but on the other hand some people say it almost looks too artificial -like photoshop blur. Also, there are many ways available to DIY by modifying a standard UV filter for example: http://www.4photos.de/camera-diy/Apodization-Filter.html http://www.junyeumah.com/2014/09/apodization-filter-for-photography.html But .. i do get the appeal of wanting to have that special version of a already fantastic lens. Maintaining maximum performance that a DIY hack of course will not.

Lucky man !

Prepare to be proven wrong ! (about it being a waste, it's going to make them lots of money for more bodies and more glass) People keep speaking of R&D like there is a finite amount of it, but Fuji is a BIG company, when they have an idea they can put as much resources on it as they want or need to. Nobody has to be pulled away from working on the X-Pro2, they will just put a team together that works on one project, and another team that works on something else. It's not a couple dudes in a basement you know.