Sella174

Try the Super-Takumar lenses, as they all have character (instead of flaws). The Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR and (K-mount) SMC lenses are boring, as the coatings are too scientifically perfect. Also, don't worry about the radio-active thorium coated lenses. The levels are lower than those emitted by a marble kitchen counter and the yellowing acts as a nice "warming" filter, that AutoWB compensates for rather well.

To the OP: The reason I left Canon was because of their emphasis on video, instead of stills photography. In terms of me and myself, Canon thus ignored their current market, went after another market and lost a customer. Probably no big deal to them and I'm sure, just like Canon, FUJIFILM won't fold if I stop being a customer when they make video cameras that can also do stills.

Is it too late to ask for a square sensor?

How about a manual focus tilt & shift lens for architecture? Related question, but also not quite: Does anyone have any experience regarding those T&S adapters available on eBay?

Whenever this subject comes to the fore, I tell the following story: Many years ago when I bought my first DSLR - a secondhand Canon EOS 30D - I was told to also purchase a copy of PhotoShop. However, browsing through the local camera shops website, I noticed that an EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM lens cost exactly the same as PhotoShop. I went with the lens, as it gave me a level of quality that PhotoShop could never fix that was lacking on my EF 75-300mm lens. Afterwards, the JPEG's were so good I never felt the need for post-processing. Moral of my story, excellent lenses trump PhotoShop. However, I can see the value of PhotoShop for people who are constantly "upgrading" their cameras, or switching brands. In this regard they never quite learn all the ins and outs of the camera in the same way that we used to with film, and PhotoShop thus provides the constant on which they build their photography.

If you want something to fail, then you can setup the parameters so that the test gives a negative result. That said, I've used the ES on many occasions when I do not want the sound of the shutter distracting the subject(s) and have never experienced any problems with it. Photo below was taken with an X-T1 & 55-200mm at 1/2400 of a second.

Photography is an art, not an exact science. Thus the white balance can be whatever the photographer feels like at that time. Of course, it is within your right not to like it, but then the inverse is also my right not to like a "scientifically accurate" white balance.

I think FUJIFILM is doing this lens because the optical formula is super-easy, which means very little R&D cost. Thus it is another product on the shelf that can be sold for a profit. Plus WR'ing it will be an added attraction.

Perhaps it uses better optical glass that is multi-coated? Only then you lose all the charm of the original, don't you? I think I'll buy the FUJIFILM 90mm instead.

Because the X-Pro1 was a phenomenal camera when it came out and thus also when Rockwell wrote his review of said camera. However, like most people with a website consisting of hundreds of pages, he probably doesn't keep revisiting and updating the content already posted, but continually moves ahead with new stuff. This said, there is nothing weird about "loving" the X-Pro1 (when it was released) and now being "unimpressed" with the replacement camera, now. It is probably his opinion that the X-Pro2, apart from the more megapixels of the sensor, is not really that much of an advance over the X-Pro1, as a lot of the old niggles are still there. And similarly I won't be much impressed by the X-T2 sufficiently to entice upgrading from the X-T1.

Seeing as I have only bought the 35mm f/2 and the 55-200mm after nearly three years, one could say that I either don't have a least used lens or that all the others are in that category. As for the rumoured 50mm f/2, I most definitely won't even give that lens even a first look.

The problem with these types of "weathering" is that although it looks good to the amateur, most seasoned photographers can immediately see that it is fake because there are "weathering" marks where there should not be if from normal usage.

I must agree with milandro on this subject. And just to add, most of my cameras and lenses eventually look rather the worse for wear, simply because I use them for years and years. I prefer spending the dough on trips, instead of sitting at home with brand-new gear. I must also add that I am kind of disappointed at how fast my X-T1 has started to show wear marks.

Having used AGFA film almost exclusively for decades, I'd really love those simulations. But understandably it'll never happen from FUJIFILM.

Criticising government and politicians is not just because they're violating "civil rights", but also about non-delivery of essential services, .e.g health care, clean drinking water and sweeping the streets. Plus, my post in that regard was not directed at the OP and his pimped camera, but at the others suffering from social media syndrome.