JRphoto

AE Bracketing(±2EV / ±5/3EV / ±4/3EV / ±1EV / ±2/3EV / ±1/3EV) 
Film simulation bracketing(Any 3 types of film simulation selectable) 
Dynamic Range Bracketing (100% · 200% · 400%)
ISO sensitivity Bracketing (±1/3EV / ±2/3EV / ±1EV) 
White Balance Bracketing (±1 / ±2 / ±3)

Doing great folks, keep it up! 
 

Fuji X-T1, 10-24/4, large octabox. SOOC.

Here you can post your night photographs (done with Fuji X cameras, of course!)
 
This includes all kinds of night photography, from night portraiture to star trails and even time lapse.
 
To prime the topic: Fuji X-T1, 55-200, 3 small strobes. Minimal post processing.

It seems to me that the 90mm + extension tube(s) would be a good way to go. Also the 90mm + 16mm ext tube plus the TC 1.4 is also a viable set up but it must have the 16mm ext tube is vital!

The title of the topic is misleading. Not every use of Photoshop is so heavy like in the given examples.
Photoshop doesn't have to mean unrealistic interpretation of reality, it can be quite the contrary - a tool to correct camera or photographer mistakes (color balance, contrast, dinamic range, leveling horizons etc).
It is also a mistake to think that a straight out of camera image is more real. There is more "Photoshop" in jpg processing than in basic Raw conversion.
No picture is real word. It is photographers subjective interpretation of real word, but that's not part of this discussion.

Thank you JRphoto.  That's exactly what I was thinking about doing! Great!

I don't know if you'll find this useful, but when you set the X-T1 in M mode (focus mode selector) and the clutch mecanism in AF position, obviously you cannot manual focus using the lens, but the camera
works as in manual focus, and the AF-L button works to focus. Indeed, in this configuration, this is the only way to focus: the shutter button don't change the focus when pressed. It may be useful, for example, in situations that
you focus once and don't want to change the focus for the next shots. Maybe there are other uses for this configuration.

I don't know if you'll find this useful, but when you set the X-T1 in M mode (focus mode selector) and the clutch mecanism in AF position, obviously you cannot manual focus using the lens, but the camera
works as in manual focus, and the AF-L button works to focus. Indeed, in this configuration, this is the only way to focus: the shutter button don't change the focus when pressed. It may be useful, for example, in situations that
you focus once and don't want to change the focus for the next shots. Maybe there are other uses for this configuration.

Use Exposureplot to find your most used focal lengths.
 
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Hi jdam21!
 
Maybe other information regarding these lens can be useful in deciding. So, I would say:
 
XF90mm:
     Good points
        - WR
        - Fast and precise AF
        - More magnification (2x more than the XF56mm)
    Weak point
        - Needs more working space for portraits
 
XF56mm:
     Good points
        - Smaller and lighter
        - More versatile
        - Low light capability
     Weak point
       - AF in low light
 
So, running subjects (kids and pets) in the yard with raining possibilities, I would go for the 90mm.
Indoor portraits, more static subjects and better all-around possibilities, I would buy the 56mm.
 
 
I think this site makes a fair analysis:
http://toolsandtoys.net/reviews/a-review-of-the-fuji-xf-56mm-f1-2-xf-90mm-f2-0-lenses/
 
Some photo comparison here:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Fujifilm_Fujinon_XF_90mm_f2_R_LM_WR/verdict.shtml

http://www.fujifilm.com/support/digital_cameras/software/firmware/procedure_interchangeable.html

yeah I returned it in to the store where I bought it. Fuji says they will loan out a copy while I wait.

In the "Specifications" page of my i40 flash manual it shows the flash has a color temperature of 5600K. So I just go in the WB menu
and set this value for "Color Temperature" (5600K).

https://flic.kr/p/EPgmz2
 
A recent photo I took with the 60mm @ F/2.4

in P mode the front and rear deals do exactly the same thing, they both shift the SS and A to maintain the metered exposure (DR has to be set to anything but auto, for P mode to work), you can not alter either the shutter speed or the aperture independently of each other in P mode.
 
from my testing on lenses with an Aperture ring, at least on the XT-10 the only way to shoot in manual exposure is to set the aperture on the lens, regardless of the mode selected. (even though Fuji manual says rear dial works..)

As said in other places: 
 
The lenses are close in end results, but they are different enough that it should be fairly easy to pick one over the other depending on your needs/wants. 
 
If your goal is optical performance, creative options, and purity of optical lens design, there is no question, it has to be the 1.4. It offers one stop bigger max aperture, which means better low light, more creative options, better blur, it also recovers better in sharpness across the frame from f/2.8 on up which means you get better balanced sharpness and contrast across the frame from it.
 
The new f/2 lens is mechanically the clear winner, although I find the aperture ring actually a bit too tight, maybe that will losen over time though. The WR is welcome to keep dust out of lens and body, the AF performance is marginally better, hunting is more of a body than a lens problem anyways (the body tells the lens where to go) and people often compare old firmware experience with current firmware experience instead of comparing actual apples to apples. 
 
A lot of the reviewers make money when people use their "Buy now" links. Therefore, they often don't offer a clear opinion, but try to make those who don't own either lens buy at least one, and get those who own one already to buy the other as well. It's not that they are paid for the reviews or for a specific opinion, it's that they get money if any of the reviewed products are bought. 
 
I own both lenses because we go out as a pair (my wife and I) and we both like the XF35 field of view. Therefore having two of them makes sense for us and therefore we have the opportunity to compare the lenses themselves as well as the results later on. 
 
My personal recommendation: the XF35 f/1.4 is the better allrounder due to the qualities mentioned above, the XF35 f/2 is a very worthy contender if you have a tighter budget and benefit from WR. The new XF35 f/2 is great lens for everything where consistent across the frame contrast/sharpness/look from f/4 to f/11 isn't as critical.
 
The tiny problem I have with the f/2 is that even without pixel-peeping, the print results in the extreme corners I get from it, are sometimes (very rarely) not satisfactory from f/4 to f/8 – a range I use a lot for my photography. It doesn't affect many photos in a way that I notice it but it happened a few time to me now so that my first choice between the two is the f/1.4 if that isn't already taken by my wife (she has first pick of course).

I think it's always personal opinion, and often depends on image type you are taking. Just spend 30 days with single lens only to understand it's potential.
 
I was taking portraits and general pictures with Voigtlander 40mm 1.4 on X-T1 for about month. Then I made few shots with XF 35mm 1.4 on F1.4. Comparing to Voigtlander results this lens is just ridiculously sharp wide open - it catches every skin pore. It took few days for me to get used again to that sharpness level : )
 
BTW, just make sure your NR is set to -2 to judge real sharpness of the lens. Fuji NR is a bit aggressive there.
 
I'd recommend to choose 35mm f2 if you need faster focus, smaller size, and probably extra weather/dust protection.
But if you like DOF of 1.4, take 35mm 1.4 then, it's one of the best Fuji lens, a real jem, and it's perfectly usable on that F1.4.

SETUP MENU 2 -> BUTTON/DIAL SETTING -> SELECTOR BUTTON SETTING -> Fn BUTTON.

The X-Pro2 focuses quite quick and accurately. I still don't think it's on par with the quickest DSLRs. Is the gap big enough that I notice the difference? Yes. Is the gap big enough that I care? No. Stuff like the X-Pro2, EM5-II and just about everything Sony's doing have convinced me that mirrorless is the way to go. The DSLR is dead to me. 

Electronic Shutter of X-E2 has longest time of 1s only.

Exactly, X-E2 improved so much and have so little differences that I've decided to buy it, and sell the X-T1 ! : )

Thank you - That was the problem. I made some changes after doing the firmware update and that was one of them.

Thanks for all the suggestions. I ended up taking the X100T only and had a blast with such a small kit. There were very few times I wished I had more reach. If you're interested, the best (imho) of my many shots can be found here: https://dbspano.smugmug.com/Street-Photography/Italy.
 
 
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I've just picked up the 16mm 1.4 a few days ago.
  I've barely had a chance to use it, literally only for a couple of snaps, but can give some observations from my circumstances.   I originally had the 35mm 1.4 and the 18mm 2.0. I sold both of these lenses, as the 35mm was a little too mid-range for my needs, despite being a really nice lens. The 18mm 2.0 was fine, but I wanted something a little wider, sharper and faster overall.   I prefer to operate at both ends of the extremes, so when I replaced those two lenses, I was looking for something between the 16mm and 23mm range for the wide end, and for the long end, the obvious candidate for me would be the 56mm 1.2, should I decide to add to my gear.   I use my X-Pro1 and X-T1 for casual shooting and my everyday carry around stuff, as I have my Nikon D800 and associated gear and lenses for bigger projects. I did contemplate an all in one solution with the 16-55mm 2.8, but in the end, decided that I lacked a fast prime in the 24mm range in my overall kit (as I have the Nikon 24-70mm), so plucked for the 16mm.   Some quick comparisons and musings.  The 18mm 2.0 and 35mm 1.4 are far smaller in size than the 16mm – if size and weight are an issue for you, then this is something to consider. This is one of the reasons why I also opted for the 16mm over the 16-55mm, because it is slightly smaller (but not by much). I haven't found the 16mm to be overly heavy or bulky – nor do I find it a problem in terms of balance on the camera body. You may improve that further with the battery grip though, especially on smaller Fuji bodies than the X-T1. This was originally a concern of mine before I bought it. The combination however no longer fits my Black Rapid SnapR 35 bag – that's annoying. The aperture ring is ever so slightly loose. Not horribly so, but it's a lot easier to move the aperture ring versus the 18mm and the 35mm, which had a nicer "click" to it. I suspect it will be easy to accidentally knock the aperture ring off one of the settings. No big deal, but something to be aware about. The lens hood is plastic – but Fuji's lens hoods and caps have always been a bit flimsy to me, but the cheaper 18mm and 35mm came with metal hoods. Having said that, the plastic hood is well made and doesn't bother me. It's similarish to some of the Nikon ones. You can attach it to the lens reversed for travelling with, which is a plus point. The lens itself is well made and feels good in the hands. It's a premium lens. The mechanism for switching to manual focus is really nicely done. You pull back on the focus ring and it switches from auto focus into manual mode. I really like that, and it's made me use manual focus far more. The lens does seem to suffer from chromatic aberration, but then, that's something the majority of lenses I've used suffer from and can be corrected in post. From what I can tell, it does an excellent job of minimising distortion and is sharp across the frame. It focuses close and at 1.4 it does a good job at isolating subjects. This is what you're spending your money on really. If you feel that you need something faster than 2.8, then pick it up. If you don't, consider one of the alternatives or the zoom for convenience.If you intend to take photos of people and portraits, and you're not used to a lens this wide, then you will need to get a lot closer to them in order to fill the frame. This can be off-putting for people who are not used to having their photo taken and make them feel self conscious. So that's something to be aware about in terms of expectations. The difference between 16mm and 18mm is actually a lot – that 2mm goes a long way. The 16mm is definitely wide wide and feels so. Coming from the 18mm 2.0 and 35mm 1.4 – you go from a 52mm adapter ring to a 67mm one, which I didn't double check at first and meant I couldn't use my Lee Seven filter system until I purchased a new one – easily rectified but obviously at another small spend. Autofocus seemed reasonable to me – but I've not done any extensive checking or testing. But even around the house I was fairly impressed with how well it locked onto things, and as I mentioned earlier and as someone has mentioned since, the manual focus override is excellent and useful. Obviously when you shoot at a shallow depth of field like 1.4, you need to be technically disciplined to ensure you lock on and focus on what you need to. From my early tests, it's not really different to what I expected and will likely require some time to get to know how the lens best behaves in these circumstances. How will it best be used? It's a specialist lens, so landscapes, street photography and environmental portraits or in certain wedding scenarios, it'd very handy. It's good for tight situations and obviously low light, so if you shoot any of those things, then it's worth considering.   In the end, the 18mm was a cheapish sort of lens, but I got results from that which I was happy with. I can tell in my short use that the 16mm's image quality is better overall, so look forward to seeing what I can do with it. They are however all very good lenses these days, so whatever you buy you should be pretty happy with.   Hope that helps – here's one of the very few images I took with it so far...     For some comparative purposes, here are some images I've taken in the past with the 18mm 2.0.
 

 
           

Amazing, are these all the contradictions you could fit in one post?