Jürgen Heger

@qunci I apologize for my late reply but I was offline the last days. I did neither attack all members of the forum or the thread nor was this my intention. I just said in general that if someone critizies Fuji he is likely to get bashed. In the end all what Nosegunner wants is that Fuji does with the 23 the same that they did with the 35. To me this is not that stupid. Make a lens with f/2 instead of f/1.4 and increase the sharpness in the center slightly, significantly in the corners and size and weight will come down automatically. Exactly what happened with the 35/2 at least to a review where I saw the pictures if both lenses side by side Almost everyone accepts that the quality of 90/2 is better than the 23. So if someone says he wants better quality than the 23 than why not. Others in this forum do not stop to praize the quality of the X100. Especially in German reviews the common sense is that the center quality is good but the sides and the corners are very poor, too poor for the price. So quality is very subjective. If someone is not happy with a certain quality we should not try to convince him that it is good enough. I know that Nosegunner now is not criticizing the optical quality of the 23 any more complains about size and weight. But this is how it all started. @johant Probably we are not that much apart. I would like to see a more friendly atmosphere in this forum. That is why I was very generaland did not address anyone directly. I tried not to insult anyone personally. Obviously I failed miserably.

The introduction of my first post in this thread was like pouring oil into the fire. Probably this was not very wise, even more as this was not the worst bashing of Fuji critics in this forum. I'm sorry, I just could't resist. But in general I prefer if people stay relaxed and don't get personal, whatever funny statements others make. But back to the original idea of the OP. The more I think about it the more I like the idea that Fuji should make a 23/2 with better quality, less size and weight, at a lower price than the 23/1.4, as they have done with the 35/2. Imagine, if the quality would be like the 90/2.

@cug I just think that all these discussions should be a litte bit more relaxed. Almost everything that is discussed here is very subjective. So everyone will have a different opinion anyway. For me there is no reason to become harsh. May be I just do not fully understand what the other really means or that what is important to him is completely unimportant to me. So I try to stay calm. With my posts I mainly try to give a new point of view. If you do not think it is of any help just ignore it. But I plead guilty that my comment what happens if someone critices Fuji was mockingly. Thanks for the link. It mainly supports my thesis that digital cameras need faster shutter speed than analog cameras. My calculation is not personal but based on the welknown rule of thumb that the shutter speed should be faster than 1/focal length. This rule is for 35 mm film and is based on the assumption that an infinite small dot will be considered sharp if it is smaller than 1/1400 of the diagonal of the picture. For digital cameras I made the assumption that it should be as small as a single pixel. The theoretical diagonal of the Fuji is the square root of (4896*4896 + 3264*3264) which gives 5884 which is 4.2 bigger than 1400. I guess, my assumption that a digital camera can capture a dot with the size of only one pixel violates the Nyquist theorem. This would be possible only if the dot happens to be at the same position as a pixel. I agree that I should have made this consideration earlier So if we assume the smallest dot should be 2 pixels wide than the factor becomes 2.1 multiplied with the crop factor 1.5. So the recommended shutter speed for the 23mm lens would be 1/72. Slower than from my first statement but still faster than many would expect. And it also means we cannot expect sharp borders between pixels. I completely agree that it is possible to take sharp pictures with a slower shutter speed than the recommended one. But if people want to use the old rule of thumb they should adjust it to the cropping factor and to the pixel number of their sensor. And with every increase in resulation, i.e. 16MP --> 24MP a new adjustment will be necessary if you want the full resolution. As I shoot a lot at dim light I sometime have difficulties to reach the recommended speed. And before I blame the lens or camera I assume it is because I made the fault.

@Nosegunner Now you got the point. Never criticise in a Fuji forum anything that Fuji does. Most readers put a lot of effort in finding the best camera system before they decided for Fuji. If you criticise anything of Fuji you also criticise the decision of these people. It is ok to ask Fuji to do funny things, but only if you acknowledge that everything is great what they have done so far. As you have noticed there are threads where others ask exactly for the same 23/2 as you did, but they did not complain about the quality of the existing one. So there was no bashing for them. I personally would not mind if Fuji would release a23/2 with good quality but I would not die if they don't. In fact, most of my pictures are missing some sharpness.... but I am sure it is not because the lens is poor, not even my 18/2, but because I mostly shoot hand held. Most people will know the rule that we learned in analog film days that the shutter speed should be at least 1/focal length. However, I am not sure if they can translate it correctly to digital APS-C cameras. First you have to multiply the focal length with the cropping factor. This is what probably most know. However, the rule assumes that the blur should be less than 1/1400 of the picture diagonal. But if we want to pixel peep then we need much less blur. Now we have to multiply with about 4.2, so we multiply the focal length in total by 6.3. This requires a minimum shutter speed of 1/145 with a 23mm length for hand held shooting! If you can not guarantee this or a tripod, you should not complain about the quality of you lens☺ This is also the reason, why I prefer the 18-55 with IOS over the 16-55 without IOS or why I want higher ISO instead of more pixels for the next Fuji. But that's just me.

Black Pearl's explanation is perfectly correct but may also confuse a little bit as it mentions "full frame lens". All 56mm lenses have a deeper depth of field than 85mm lenses. It does not matter if the lens is made for full frame, APS-C or MF4/3 or any other format. (Or more general longer focal length give less depth of field and vice versa.) And lower aperture numbers also give less depth of field. For a typical portrait lens you would choose 85mm on a full frame but 56 on a APS-C. They will give the same field of view but at a given aperture the depth of field is different, shallower on the 85mm. You can compensate this by a lower aperture number on the 56mm i.e. 1.2 on the 56 instead of 1.8 on the 85. If you want to compete with with your Fuji with an 85/1.2 on a full frame you are screwed. You would need a 56.6/.80. To the best of my knowledge there is no such lens. But Bokeh is just one side of taking pictures. Sometimes I would prefer more depth of field for example often for documentary and street photography. In this case I can open my aperture by one half stop to get a faster shutter speed for less motion blurr but still get the some depth of field as on a full frame. Exposure wise a 1.2 lens is a 1.2 lens regardless on what format it is used and for what format it is made.(Of course, some lenses have a better transition than others. This is the reason why cinematographers are using t-stop rather than f-stops, as Balck Perl has explained.

@zuluviper I played a little with the manual focus. At one point I also felt that the EVF gets soft when I press the release button half way. But when I looked carefully I noticed that just the focus peaking goes off. I had high lighted straight edges which pretended sharpness. This is about the same what happens when you do an unsharp masking in Photo Shop. Are you sure this is not what you have seen?

Hm, my Fuji 18-55mm needs about 360 degrees from infinite to short distance, while my Nikon AF 85mm only needs 90 degrees. But I remember that many people complained that the AF versions of the Nikon lenses have a too short way compared to the manual focus lenses. The Fuji behaves a bit slow at both the near and the far end where it takes some turning until the distance indicator in the EVF starts moving. I also find it a bit confusing that the distance indicator always moves in small jumps regardless how slowly I turn the focus ring. But I could never observe that the sharpness jumps so I think it is only the distance indicator in the EVF. What I really miss is that there are no stops at either end and sometimes I am missing distance labels on the lens tube and a mark on the focus ring. And if they are already at it they could add labeled stops for the aperture ring also on zooms. So I do not need a new type of lens but just that they make properly what they already claim to do: lenses that can be used in an all automatic mode and in a traditional way. First edit 2015-12-01 With the Fuji 56/1.2 I could see that the sharpness also jumps when I carefully turn the focus ring. This also matches with the sound from the autofocus motor and the vibrations that I feel. Obviously due to the bigger depth of field caused by the open aperture of 4 I did not notice it on 18-55. So, no smooth manual focus with Fuji lenses.

Would you like to share the release day as well☺

I do not see anything similar with my x-e1 and a Nikon AF 85\1.8 and a Novoflex adapter.. You could check if you can get a better focus if you put your camera on a tripod and do a kind of focus bracketing. Focus according to the focus assitant, take an image and then turn the focus ring a little bit in one direction, take another image and finally turn the ring in the other direction a little bit over the first position take athird image. If the first image is the sharpest than the remaining softness comes from the lens.

@jlmphotos: People in general and old men in particular, like myself, like to complain that in old days everything was better But to me it is more or less the discussion about how much camera do we need to take a good picture. I just read about Kathy Ryan and her new book "Office Romance" that was shot with an iPhone. https://instagram.com/kathyryan1\?hl=de (I hope the link works. I had to type it as I do not know how to copy with my tablet) Some in this forum insist that they get a higher resolution with the next Fuji generation, some are dreaming about medium format and others, like myself, absolutly need higher ISO and faster auto focus. But is anything necessary to create art? Obviously not. So this type of discusion can help us to get the feet back to the ground. As much as I like to buy gadgets I know that I do not NEED them. It's just nice to have them. Not more.

In most cases I only have two lenses with me, one on the camera and one in a small bag around my waist. For daylight I use the 18-55. It is light weight and small and I have no complains about the image quality. I find it very convenient that I do not have to change lenses when I want to change focal length. Typically I have the 23 with me for low light situations. This is what I had with me when I visited LA.(I am living in Germany.) For indoor shootings at low light, I take the 23 and the 56. The 55-200 is my wild life, hm, ok, zoo lens. Then I also take the 23 with me. At the moment I am wondering if I need the 16 and/or the 35. The 16 to be wider but I am not sure if I am prepared to go clother to the action than with the 23. For landscapes I find that wide often is too wide. The 35 is a focal lenght that I use a lot with the 18-55. So may be I want it as a prime. However, I am not sure if I ever want to carry more than one additional lens with me. Edited: Typo corrected.

@ShutterNot:While there's life, there's hope But I agree, like often, with milandro that whatever Fuji may pull from their hat, it will not make me a better photographer....but some things are just soo nice to have and a few more ISO stops with an autofocus that can keep track with the ISO would be helpful when I shoot at a blues concert or a party.

There is a good chance that my other hobby, music, gets some money next year. PRO2 without Tilt Sreen and T2 will be a video camera. So may be I can lean back and wait for the Pro3/T3. But may be Fuji includes something that attracts my attention nevertheless and make me spend my money again for Fuji.

I am really disappointed that there will be no Tilt Screen. Actually, I do not really care about the Pro2. But I guess it also means that the E3, if there will be one, will also have none. When I bought my T1 I was not very excited about the Tilt Screen. But I soon found out how usefull it is in many situations. In fact, I think it helps creativity as it is easier to use unusual points of view. So when I want to participate in the hopefully faster autofocus and higher ISO of the next generation I will be forced to buy another fake DSLR, and I really really hate fake designs. Not even the highly appreciated ISO dial can compensate that. Looks to me that nowadays design has highest priority. The Pro despite its name is not the camera to give professionals a tool with all the best ingrediences from the Fuji stock. It is designed to look like an old fashioned Leica made for old men to make the dreams from their youth come true. And the more versatile T1 needs to look like a DSLR because that's how serious cameras look. But probably I am just a grumpy old man who is disappointed that his current dream, an E3 with ISO dial, Tilt Screen, and high ISO performance like the Sony A7s II, will not come true

May be a we can get a 'Do what I mean' function Sorry, no offence meant. Actually, in cases like this I would adjust the ISO setting manually. This is why I like the ISO dial on the T1, even if I prefer the handling of my E1 in general. I would be afraid that the set up for something what you have requested would become too complicated and too specific for one situation. In fact, this is why I never made use of creative modes on other cameras that I own.

May be Fuji can just increase the time to 99 seconds or even better if they add one digit and give us 999 seconds. In this case we gad to do some math to convert from minutes to seconds but the change in the firmware should be simple.

Www.fujirumors.com works for me as expected Edit: I am using a Sony tablet with Android 4.4.2.

Again no aperture numbers and no stops on the aperture ring. I really miss them on my 18-55 and 55-200.

@cug: Thank you for taking the time to answer my questioin. It seems that taking pictures of moving objects can lead to different results. This video from May 2014 shows a comparison of four mirror less cameras and a Nikon D4s. At that pre FW 4.0 time the Fuji T1 was the slowest, but still capable. They also came to the conclusion that the Panasonic GH4 also mirrorless comes very close to the Nikon D4s. My point is not to discuss if a morrorles has 90% or 99% of the performance of the D4s. But even 80% of the best of the best DSLR should be usable in many cases. Your experience obviously is different where you came to the conclusion that the T1 can be used for stills and slowly moving objects only. So apart from all objective measurements the subjective user experience can be very different. Edit: As the above is just 2nd hand information here my own experience: At good light condition the auto focus is quite fast but it becomes slow and inaccurate if the light becomes dim. My biggest problem when trying to track a moving object is the long time where the viewer is dark after each shot.

Would you like to tell us what DSLR it is?

A camera is a camera is a camera. This is my credo when I am comparing cameras. In the first aproach I do ignore technical differences and just judge if it can do what I want it to do and where I have to make a compromise. And there are always compromises to make. But then there is a point where I also look at the price and wonder if the additional benefits are worth the additional costs. It is very likely that a D4s has a faster auto focus than the Fujis. But does anyone KNOW how a D7200 or a D7 II compares to a T10 or T1 with the latest firmware? They would be in the same price range and for most people the more likely alternatives. How much better are they?

The ISO sensitivity is a standard. It is also standardized how to measure it. If the manufacturers would specify which measurement the have choosen the sensitivities of different cameras would be more comparable. However, according to DxO they seem to be not that different in general. Canon seems to be about 1\4 stop below their specification, Nikon about 1\3, Leica 1\2 (Although the X seems to be 1\4 above),the Fuji X100 about 2\3 below, and Olympus 1 stop below. All refers to the difference between the specification of the manufacturer and what DxO have measured. It does not mean that DxO is right and manufacturers are wrong. It just means that the different measurements do not give that different results. Unfortunately DxO have not measured any of the newer Fuji X cameras. But unless the X100 behaves completely different from the newer ones we can assume that the T1, T10, E2, and X100s/t are not much different from the Canons and Nikons, at least we should not expect much more than 1\2 stop difference. So may be Scottie,s observation of more than 1 stop difference is just subjective and therefore not so accurate.

I support Andrews Brown's proposal. Acronyms should be defined when used the first time. I think once per thread would be enough. However, some acronyms are so common they may slip my attention. I just wanted to write "...would be ok." Which should have read instead "... would be ohne Korrektur (ok)". At least this is what I read somewhere about the origin of ok. ☺ But may be , instead of wasting our time with this discussion, those who support Milandro and Andrew just do it in their next posts. We cannot force the others anyway and I personally prefer a little bit of anarchy much more than too many rules.

Milandro, take it easy. You are one of the most active persons in this forum. You should already have got used to this kind of discussion. If someone has a question like "Can I do A with my X" you can be sure there are replies like - Why do you want to do A. Doing A is stupid. Do B. - No one ever buys X to do A. You should have bought Y to do A. - You can do C. It is not the same as A but C is great. Another alltime favorite for is: - I don't have the answer, but would be interested in the answer as well. This is what we have to expect when we post. So just ignore it.

Yes, it's a sin. You will be excommunicated immediately. Hey, even Patrik who seems to have devoted his live to Fuji X uses a Samyang.