meloaku

Many photos by Cartier-Bresson, Doisneau, Erwitt and others, whose abilities are beyond question, are blurred, grainy and slightly out of focus, but they are world-class photographs.
 
Many of mine are the same, but it didn't stop over one million people visiting my Milan exhibition in 2014 and 2015, and strangely enough, the imperfect photos were some of the most-loved by the visitors.
 
Perfection is a myth - it's boring.... and while most photographers are still messing around trying to get 100% perfection, the real photographers have already grabbed the most poignant moment and syndicated it worldwide. 
 
Sometimes you can be lucky and get near perfection in the second it takes to grab a stunning photograph (posed or contrived photos are never stunning), but perfection is simply not important compared to capturing the decisive moment.
 
The 18mm lens has caught me some amazing photographs that have never been refused by any publication.  Post 16 of this thread is one such example.  The expressions of all the people looking at the old man far outweigh any softness that a pixel peeper might find in the corners.

No, a 24mm lens on a 24x36mm sensor will draw the same angle of view as a 16mm lens on a 16x24mm sensor. Yes, this is a very wide lens, and it is hard to control the funkiness that results from using such a wide angle of view. I remember reading about a classic street photographer (Winogrand?) who wanted the widest possible lens, but settled on a 28mm not because it was the widest but because it was as wide as he could get with a reliably appealing drawing for his purposes. So, don't assume that just because some photogs prefer 24mm means you should, too; 28mm and 35mm are also quite useful for environmental portraiture (as can be 18mm and 21mm).
 
Without seeing what you're talking about, it is hard to tell you what you're seeing. But, you might be talking about perspective distortion or areal distortion.
 
Test: take an image that shows strong distortion of the kind you're seeing. Edit it in a program that allows you to correct for distortion. Now, add barrel distortion (or tell the program that you want to correct for pincushion even when lines at the edges are already straight). This will reduce areal distortion. If this solves your issue, then you know what it is.
 
Theory overview--
 
I think there are three kinds of distortion:
 
1 - Perspective
2 - Linear
3 - Areal
 
Perspective distortion is the result of the distance between objects and the camera. Lenses do not affect perspective distortion beyond making certain things possible or in how a particular lens facilitates the use of particular types of shots.
 
Linear distortion is usually what people mean when they're thinking of lens-related distortion. Take a picture with a flat subject along one edge of the frame; if straight lines are bent, you are seeing linear distortion.
 
Areal distortion is usually what people are referring to when they say wide lenses distort people's heads. Of course, it distorts all subjects, but we're just more attuned to the way a human head naturally looks so we're more sensitive to distortion of it. Take a picture of a regular subject (say, a round sign) in the corner of the frame; if it appears like an egg shape rather than a circle, you're seeing areal distortion.
 
Linear distortion and areal distortion are directly and inversely correlated. Eliminating linear distortion means accepting areal distortion and vice versa.
 
Thought experiment: consider a brick wall of infinite length and width. Each brick is the same size. But, if you look to one side, the bricks further away appear to be smaller (due to perspective distortion). Now, try drawing an image of a brick wall where bricks toward the edges of the frame are smaller than those in the center. The accurate result is barrel distortion. The wider the angle of view, the stronger the naturally occurring linear distortion. In order to eliminate that distortion, the bricks at the edges of the frame must be drawn larger than they actually appear. This distorts the appearance of areas, creating areal distortion.
 
In my experience, wide-angle lenses that are perfectly corrected for linear distortion can be rather ugly in some scenes due to areal distortion. Adding a hint of barrel to the image makes it look better. Older, classic lenses do this intentionally: it isn't that optical design has only recently allowed for perfect rectilinear designs but that, before the rise of internet reviews and "oh, curved line, must be bad lens" comments, lens designs balanced linear and areal distortion. (This might be important if you're looking at photos taken with 24mm lenses from the 1980s or earlier, as they weren't as strictly barrel-free as today's designs.) Fortunately, some software-correct lenses offer the best of both worlds: the native image has quite a bit of distortion, an "ideal" correction for straight lines is very easy to achieve, and the photographer is able to decide where in the middle each image should fall.
 
Hope this helps,
Jon

I trigger it a good bit but can basically ignore it as it goes away when I push the shutter button just a bit.

Same here, my children no longer call me a brick dad who carry a stone for family holiday.

Such companies should just be left to their fate and make room for new ones.

When did we get so lazy?  Damn.  I remember when you had to hold in a button on the end of a long braided metal cord and have a stop watch or count it off.
 
All of this complaining is getting to the point of utter ridiculousness.  Next you'll want a pop out tripod on the bottom of the camera, or an attached remote to the body that you can simply always have with you.  Then you'll aways be prepared to be a lazy photographer.  Seriously is it too hard to hold a button down?
 
I've never taken a 2 hour long exposure using a constant wifi connection, so I couldn't say, but I can certainly see how this would create a whole slew of issues.
 
You can go experiment now, there have been multiple posts of remote releases that will work.  That all of us are using to "experiment" with now.  Sorry you bought the wrong triggers and now it's Fuji's fault that you can't do longer than 30 second exposures.  Hell I just bought one from B&H for 8 damn dollars? You have a  thousand dollars in camera equipment and 8 bucks is too much to spend on a damn trigger?  It even comes with a lock so I won't have to hold it down for 2 hours.  That's just ludicrous.
 
 
Fuji...Please don't clutter our cameras with a bunch of crap...please... 

One more shot right after the storm
 

A local store had both the Metabones Speed Booster and adapter, so for convenience bought both. Simply, they worked. No drama, no workarounds, no esoteric tips needed.

Most of my shorter Nikon lenses are redundant to my Fuji primes, but not the longer lenses. I specially like my f/1.8 105mm with and without the Speed Booster. More than adequately sharp wide open, and with the reduced focal length, a f/1.2 105mm field of view. I found that my Perkin Elmer (marketed by Vivitar) 600mm Solid Cat mirror lens, very difficult to focus with either the adapter or Booster. No loss, it is massive and very heavy. While rated as a f/8.0, it is more like a t/11.0—quite a dark view. I also tried my 28mm PC-Nikkor shift lens and it worked fine. I have the excellent Fuji 60mm, but if I needed to work even closer, my 55mm MicroNikkor would do the job. Macro does not lend itself to autofocus, so the 55mm would not be a problem. Again, I could use it with or without the booster.

And some more, Fuji X100T and X-T1, last shot is Athens at night with the sky above, 3.5 seconds exposure, hand balanced on the windscreen, ISO 6400 and 16mm at f1.4... Heavy on the noise reduction, this was shot on a moonless night at 37000ft.

Some views from my office, the Airbus A32F. Helps having a small Fuji in the bag at all times, pictures taken with the X100T and the X-T1.

Not sure what we can add beyond this excellent article? https://www.fujivsfuji.com/10-24mm-f4-vs-primes/

It's funny, ironic maybe.
 
Although I had a Fujifilm X-10 point and shoot type camera for quite a few years, and enjoyed it greatly, I enjoyed the discipline of using a Fuji 645W Professional for about 15 years there. Not just fixed lens,but for much of the time using Tri-X ... come to think of it, that change was partly reactionary when I couldn't even buy Fuji 50 positive film any more.
 
Then about four or five months back, I happened to pick up a friend's Canon DSLR with a medium range zoom on it - it was at his 50th birthday party, so I was just grabbing some shots of his many friends there - and using this flexible piece of equipment influenced me hugely when I broke my (no doubt last) film camera last fall, and replaced it with an X-T2 and 16 ~ 55 zoom.
 
Different disciplines, different times. 50 years of shooting pictures, still and always having fun with it.

The new copy arrived, does the same thing. I've done a research and found this blue glow effect at close up pictures taken since 2015, so I guess it's normal for this lens.
 
Once you are at 45-50cm distance from the subject... the rendering is normal and very sharp even at f2 so it's ok for me

Sebas(tian?)
 
I use the two Meike 320s that I have mostly off camera, so I don't miss the180 degrees head turn. For example I leave them standing on the table pointing upwards with the diffusers on, between the glasses, or with a napkin thrown over them, and me walking around the table taking pictures of family and friends. Great on a holiday having an evening meal, everybody relaxed and chatting. I have them at a low power setting, people don't seem to be bothered, after a while they forget about me and I have nice sharp pictures, albeit with the background filtered away, which often is no bad thing. Most of the time I don't even take the FlashQ tx off the camera. I have a third rx that I use with my old Canon 420EX alongside the two Ms when at home. I think the Ms are great little things. Good price but they have a premium feel about them. They work well with rechargeable batteries, which I see as a big plus (esp. environmentally).
 
Cheers
George

I can understand the worry about robbers or pickpockets, but you have to not let that bother you too much. It would be an unfortunate event should something happen, but it can be replaced. It is always difficult deciding what gear to bring, especially when it is that once in a lifetime place. I tend to overpack the gear and underpack the clothes . I tend to usually pack two bodies, sometimes three. I was researching this topic myself and came across a post where someone stated "what happens if your body dies when you're in the middle of that once in a lifetime vacation?" which made me think that would be awful. I also love primes, but they can be a problem if you don't know what focal length you will be shooting at. As someone else mentioned, the 18-135mm is a pretty decent option. I'd compare the IQ from it close to the Canon 24-105mm L I had with my previously. It is not as sharp as the primes, but I consider it more than acceptable. It is also no where near as fast, but this lens covers a big focal range. I normally bring this lens a long with a couple others. Below are some examples of what I bring.
 
Smoky Mountains - hiking, nature, wildlife
2 bodies, 10-24mm, 18-135mm, 100-400mm, 90mm or 60mm with extension tubes, 1.4x teleconverter, 23mm
 
New York City
2 bodies (usually leaving one in room, but as a backup), 10-24mm, 23mm, 35mm
 
Western Caribbean Cruise, went to Cozumel, Costa Maya, Roatán, Harvest Caye
2 bodies, 10-24mm, 18-135mm 23mm, 35mm
 
Theme parks, I live in the capital of theme parks
1 body, 18-135mm. Sometimes I take a prime instead.

Warning Long reply
 
Depending on the location depends on the kit, I'm going to present a couple of situation one of which where money is no problem, or you own every lens, the others actual situations that I have experienced/witnessed.
 
City Trip - e.g. New York (cityscapes, street etc)
 
16mm F/1.4 & 56 F/1.2, if one body, one lens on the camera, one in a pocket
 
16mm for your cityscapes and street, 56mm if you want to do some portrait shots without being on top of the people - You want something that is fast for low light photography for the night
 
I've actually done New York with the 18mm F/2 and 35mm F/1.4, The 18mm was used through the day, and the 35mm on the night with very little lens changes throughout the day, I'd probably use the same kit again if I went back.
 
Zoom alternatives 16-55 F/2.8 as a single lens solution, during the day losing 2 stops of light wont be an issue (mostly shooting the city at F/8), at the night, you may miss those 2 stops of light
Mix XF18-55 or XC16-50 for walking around during the day, and a faster lens for the night e.g. 35 F/1.4 or 56 F/1.2
 
 
 
Safari - (assume 2 bodies)
 
Body 1 - XF100-400 (with or W/O TC)
Body 2 - XF18-135
 
100-400 for photographing the wildlife (from a safe distance, don't fancy trying to take a headshot of a lion or leopard with a prime lens)
18-135 as a backup to capture any landscape or other photographs
 
You can swap the 18-135 for any other lens but you will have gaps in focal lengths which may or may not cause you problems, if it is just for occasional landscapes etc, a small prime lens should do fine
 
Cheaper alternatives - XF55-200, or XC 50-230, you may miss the reach (look on flickr at the focal lengths people on safari use) if you're at a zoo either of those would probably do fine, the XC lens can be purchased cheaply 2nd hand but is under rated.
 
If you can't/don't want to invest in the XF100-400 but want more reach (are prepared to sacrifice quality for price, loads of super zoom bridge cameras can be purchased cheaply most only have 1/2.3" sensors but a few have 1")
 
 
Something else?
 
Do research, search flickr or other sites to see what people have used.
 
If I'm going out with no real objective I take 1 body with XF35 F/1.4 lens and maybe the XF18 F/2 in a pocket/bag.
 
I find the approx. 50mm length useful for nearly everything (bar wildlife/birds) I zoom with my feet, if I can't get wide enough i'll put the 18mm on.
 
tldr
 
Apart from wildlife photos most other photographs can be captured with most prime lenses or the zooms (that start at 16mm or 18mm)

I know the passion for which lens to put out next is often quite high due to the limited number for the Fuji mount, so it follows that this sort of lens could divide everyone into camps.  
 
I would love it but I come from a background in newspaper PJ that was arguably the birth place of both the prime and zoom "holy trinities".***   Most "normal" people also don't carry 2-3 bodies either - one over each shoulder and maybe one around the neck.  Much of that stems from never knowing what your day would bring in the way assignments - so you had to always be carrying wide, normal and tele around.
 
I agree that the wide is not useful for many folks but It is a foundational to the photojournalists tool kit for shooting environmental portraits, action in tight spaces, crowds and for remote camera setups.   Since documentary photojournalism often avoids flash photography when shooting stories - especially the ones that involve intimate access to the subject to tell the story - a fast wide is needed
 
 
The only 2 reasons I have held onto any Canon gear are I still have my EF 20-35 2.8 which even 20 years on - is one of my sharpest lenses. (The other reason is wireless TTL HSS setups.  Fuji needs to get its act together on the strobes.  It isn't event the "fancy" stuff like HSS - AF assist is something I hear folks wanting improved on the forums.)
 
 
*** There are even a couple of variations for sub-genres like sports.  35mm sports work was mostly the 16-35 wide zoom for remote cameras, to get the team huddle or "hail Mary" in the scrum, the 70/80-200 and a  300/400/600.   But the fast ultra-wide always stayed on one of your 3 bodies.

Part of the SOOC Fuji magic seems to have been lost with the new sensor. The camera shop recently did a SOOC JPEG shoot out and were surprised how low Fuji scored and mentioned something about this Sony sensor not having that previous magic. I got the XT2 mainly for video but will admit to being severely underwhelmed with the stills, especially in low light (or even average lit conditions). I also find it renders very flat and poorly for architecture and landscape.. basically just decent for portraits imo.. then again i am new to fuji and come from a full frame background.. maybe with some better prime lens i'd get nicer results but i did have a X100T briefly and much preferred how that sensor (and lens combo) rendered out in general. my 0.2c

"A new source" ? Not anyone from sonyrumor site i hope.
I am bit sceptical to these kind of "truths" people seems to belive in.
 
I belive it when Fujifilm confirms.
 
Sent from my Nexus 6 mobile

Scotland must be one of the most beautiful places, though. As well as Ireland and Wales.

X100F will use NP-W126 batteries of Fuji's MILC line: http://www.fujirumors.com/fujifilm-x100f-will-take-np-w126s-battery-fujifilms-milc-line/

My first Fuji gear: X-T2 paired with Fujinon xf16-55mm f/2.8 and Fujinon xf90mm f/2. Some of the photos that I have taken so far on my flickr.

Cornwall is one of the most stunning U.K. counties, surrounded by sea, incredible light.. sometimes green, sometimes blue sometimes grey, sand, cliffs, renowned for art, ceramics and culture. May is one of the best months here, when it is daylight from 4.0ish am to 10.30 ish pm. Yep, it rains.. a soft gentle mizzle that lasts all day or a harsh storm off the Atlantic with driving sheets or rain and howling wind. Being there and taking in the experience is what is important. Maybe you have a XF35mm lens to slip in your pocket alongside whichever zoom you decide? Use this for those early morning and dusk experiences at Cape Cornwall and St. Ives when the light is just right and the sun is glowing huge and red, behind banks of cloud and the sky is on fire behind you and in front and you sit in amazement![maybe bring a polarizing filter too]

i thought this until one day I properly tightened it. it's so tight that when it's only half on it feels like it's on.

X-T2, 56 APD.