Michael McKee

Great thread. I think Konzy is the one who nailed it. Having a lens that will get you the shot in most conditions quickly and reliably is often more important than absolute IQ. The 18-135 is a great lens when you aren't focused primarily on photography but want the ability to capture that special scene or moment. It focuses quickly and is nicely weather resistant. When I traveled with my late wife I couldn't concentrate first on photography the way I do when I go out on my own. She was reasonably tolerant of my photo obsession but the travel together was about, well, travel together. Record photos were nice. The occasional magic moment was easy to capture with the "swiss army knife" lens. And domestic tranquility was ensured. Consider the extra lens cheaper, and less painful, than couples counseling. As Fuji owners we can get carried away with having the best lenses. But, corner to corner sharpness is really not that essential to most non-landscape or architectural photos. Getting the shot usually is the primary goal. Good photographers work with the limitations of their equipment, whatever that is, and get good photos. Period. Just look at any famous travel photographer. Many, many of photography's iconic shots are not sharp, sometimes not totally in focus. The photographer's eye is the crucial element. Besides, having to change lenses because you have the wrong focal length on the camera has cost all of us once in a lifetime shots. If it hasn't, you aren't looking for time sensitive photos. Remember the old documentary photographer adage, f/8 and be there. My last trip with my wife I took the 18-135, the 35 f1.4 and the Samyang 12. One do everything lens. One fast interior lens for frescos and one low light normal lens. No regrets. I do own the 55-200. I use it. I like it. If I could offer Sapphire one piece of advice it would be sell all her old Canon gear and still get the 18-138. Using two systems seldom serves anyone. Muscle memory gets mixed up switching cameras and it's just extra weight to schlep around.

Unfortunately, the Dehaze filter adds a lot of noise, which is already a problem with night photography.

Tried them both. The 1.4 is a bit smoother, almost dreamy. The 2 has a bit more bite, kinda Zeiss like. Since it got the 2, it has pretty much lived on my X-T2. The 1.4 went to a new home.

There is wet weather and there is very wet weather. I'm perfectly comfortable using my X-T2 in Seattle area rain. I would keep the camera in a very good camera bag during a tropical thunderstorm. I've used the 55-200 in light rain without problem, but I'm careful to keep it covered most of the time. If I use it on a tripod I use a plastic bag around the lens and camera. A bread bag works but there are bags made for cameras that are better. The 18-135 is a great walk around lens and is actually lighter than the 55-200! I've use it for travel and outdoor events with no trouble. It is also good for street photography It is a mediocre portrait lens, but that's not its reason for being. I think that many people forget that absolute IQ is only necessary for certain situations and the 18-135 is more than good enough for many uses. cale33 is absolutely right that the 100-400 is very heavy for extended carrying. That's especially true for smaller people or those of us with troublesome backs. If you are a fit 20 or 30 something it probably won't be a problem. Otherwise I wouldn't consider it a walk around lens.

I too, owned a D600 and D750. The D750 has a bit better dynamic range at base ISO. It also will give you a full stop+ of high ISO range. That said, I am the proud owner of an X-T2 and don't miss the Nikons at all. Image quality from the X-T2 is excellent. I can only tell the difference using a magnifier on large prints. If you need that kind of quality even full frame isn't good enough. The better controls on the Fuji make me love the camera, where the Nikons were just picture taking machines for me. No love of the cameras themselves. Since most modern cameras are more than capable of making beautiful prints (with good lenses and technique) it seems to me that handling is a primary concern when choosing a camera. If you haven't handled your choices, you are not making an informed decision. The colors are different. The Nikons are more neutral. When photographing artwork or clothing for clients I use the X-Rite ColorChecker Passport with Lightroom for accurate color reproduction. I did that with Nikon too. Part of the job requirement. However I like Fuji colors and use jpeg much more often with the Fuji. Fujifilm flat out does better B&W jpegs. Print size is great. With Perfect Resize I get beautiful 24x36 prints, though mostly my big ones are 16x24, as I can print that size myself.

http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-fuji-x-t2-mhg-xt2-metal-hand-grip/p1602126 On the X-T1 and X-T10 I waited until eBay listed some Chinese grips. These have Arca compatible rails for tripods in L-bracket configuration. They allow access to the battery and cards, which the Fuji grip doesn't. It took about 6 months for them to come out. The price was less than half the Fuji grip. I have the Fuji metal grip for my X-E2 and it helps improve the handling. It's also a pain to have to remove it to replace the battery.

I'm enjoying the thread. It's an affirmation of my own experience that lens quality can only be partially measured by sharpness, coma and bokeh. I had read a lot about how excellent the 35 f/2 was so I bought it for a trip. It is nicely sharp across the frame, and it leaves me pretty cold. I found the same with the 56 and the 14. By measurable standards they are excellent. And, they look very digital. If you like that look, great. If you prefer the 23 f/1.4 then you'll probably like the newer lenses a lot. Since the newer Fujis handle manual focusing so well, I'm using old film lenses as I prefer their rendering.

I've shot the Pentax 645z and the Sony A7 rII. Megapixels and dynamic range don't tell the story. Not even close. The images from the different cameras LOOK different. It's not sharpness or bokeh either. Different sensors give a different look. This is not a better than thing. Whether we prefer one look over another is totally subjective. While I'm not that much into resolution, I do appreciate the way the Pentax renders an image. It's wonderful. Part of that may be the lens, but the look stayed with shots from three different lenses, one of which was an old film lens. I didn't prefer the look enough to deal with the price, size or slow focus. Besides, I don't need that resolution for the work I do. OTH, I found the Sony images a bit too digital and sterile. Again, that's just my take. I know three people with that camera who love it. Given the choice I'd take the X-T2 over the more expensive and higher resolution Sony. At least I will it it looks like the X-Pro2 that I've shot. When finances line up, I'll get the X-T2. You can't quantify the difference between cameras. Numbers can't tell you how the photos will look, especially when well printed.

They are all good tripods. There's a good comparison at https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/travel-tripods-5-carbon-fiber-kits-reviewed also. One consideration is that Manfroto tripods don't use an Arca compatible plate and you might want the new tripod to use the same head.

Now, tropical rain is really tough stuff to work in.

Yeah, young whipper snapper. We manual focused while walking barefoot to school, five miles and uphill each way in the snow.

As one of the old folks who shot for years without autofocus, I'll answer. Yes, zone focus is part of the process. I imagine that you've heard the old saw, "f/8 and be there," that is in part a zone focus technique. It works well with shorter focal length lenses. The other half of the equation is simply getting used to manual focusing quickly. It's a skill, and it's at least as fast as the autofocus on the X-Pro1. It's amazing what can be done with manual exposure and focus. Why, we even managed to get a photo in focus at least once a year.

If you are a person who absolutely has to have the "best," get the X-T2. You will regret anything else. Of course, the best will only be best until the next model comes out. If you are just looking for an excellent camera, I'd recommend the X-T10, which is what I'm using (Along with an X-E2). Extra megapixels are fun to count when buying, but truthfully, any currently produced interchangeable lens camera on the market today can give you excellent results. Good lenses are the first place to put your money. They hold their value better than a camera body, which is basically a computer. There will be a faster, better one out in a year or two anyway. I bought the X-Pro2, this spring, and sent it back. Couldn't justify the price. My prints didn't look any better. Yes, higher pixel count on the new cameras could be an advantage. But you will have to print really big to gain that. I recently printed a print at 16x24 inches from the X-E2 that I entered in a regional juried art show. It was the only photo in the event to win an award. (BTW, I came to Fuji from Nikon and sold a D800 to fund my purchase - my prints still look good). Don't print big? You only need 4 megapixels for any online use. Need to crop often? Buy a longer lens and learn to come close to your final crop in camera. That's what pros do. Except paparazzi, experts seldom count on cropping their shots. Need to shoot video? Do you shoot it now? If not, then video is just an idea. Need water-sealing? I live in the Pacific Northwest and shoot almost every day of the year. I've never had problems with a non-sealed camera. Keeping your camera dry is just a skill that's easily learned. A good camera bag should be enough for almost all situations. A bread bag and rubber band are my emergency "weather sealing." The simple truth is that, as a beginner, you don't know what you want. You don't know your shooting style or even goals. You may think you do, but for 99% of people, those change as you gain experience. So, my general advice to people who ask if they should buy a top of the line camera is no. Get something you can grow with. When you really know how you shoot and what you shoot, then you don't have to ask anybody what camera to get. You'll know on your own. And if you get the X-T10 you'll have saved over half the price of a new X-T2.

Changing batteries when you have a break in action is a skill. It just takes practice. It's only a problem if you don't take the time to learn to. With enough practice you'll do it automatically and not even notice that you've done it. I shot with 36 exposure rolls for decades, some of that time as a newspaper reporter. I always got my assigned shots. Maybe that's because I also learned to anticipate the appropriate moment and didn't, and still don't rely on burst mode, most of the time. Another skill that isn't that hard to learn. Yes, my old Nikon could get over 1000 exposures on a battery. I don't miss it.

I'm with the folks who are for keeping the 18-55. It's sharper than the 18mm. You only lose one stop with the 18-55, which is very seldom a problem. The 60mm is slow to focus, especially on running subjects. That includes the new bodies. It's a decent closeup lens until the 80mm macro comes out. It's also a very good portrait lens

Alf, I've only spent a total of about a year in India over the last 30. One will always get a different view working with locals. Whether that experience is more valuable is an individual opinion. I'm glad that you feel so strongly about your work.

That's a good reason why Fuji doesn't have plans to release a medium format camera. Most of the respondents want to only pay $3000 for what would cost at least twice that to manufacture. With no realistic expectation that people will pay what the camera costs, I certainly wouldn't okay the resources and cost of making one.

For less money you can hire a local guide to get you around, then you won't be taking the same photos as everyone else. Contact one of the many photography schools in the country. Students can always use cash and will understand your needs. Look at that poster, now haven't you seen a similar photo many times before?

Listen to this. After a trip to India I can swear that lots of moisture in the air will spot your sensor when you change lenses, even indoors. In rain you can't change them at all. There's a reason why working pros us sealed zooms. If you want to shoot a prime rent an X-100 and keep it in a pocket. The 16-56 WR is as sharp as the primes anyway. Rent that too if necessary. Rental costs are a fraction of travel costs. The right tools for the environment will save headaches.

If you are new to photography you won't know yet what you will really be shooting or really what you want in a camera. Ideas change after the first year or two. For most beginners it's best to get an adequate camera to learn with. The X-T10 with a 18-55 kit lens is perfect for that, and it's better than just adequate. The 18-55 lens is quite high quality and not something that you'll outgrow. Learn your camera. Learn your lens, then invest in more glass, which is the only real investment with digital cameras as the bodies will only last a few years. Good lenses can last as long as you do. After you know more about your personal habits and style, then you won't have to ask anybody which camera to buy. You'll know. Then you will have your first purchase as a backup, which is always a good thing to have as sh*t happens and it's nice to not have to wait for repairs to get out shooting. You could also go for the new X-E2s if you want to do more street shooting. I have an X-E2 and X-T1. I use the X-T1 for landscapes as the tilt screen is very useful for low shots and on a tripod. I also use it in the studio as the viewfinder is great for portraits. I use the X-E2 around town as I like the rangefinder style for offhand shooting. It was my only camera for a while when the X-T1 was in the shop. It's totally fine camera. The X-100 is more a specialists tool, great for experienced shooters who know its limits. I wouldn't recommend it as a first camera.

I particularly like the second photo. I'm going to buck a couple of other critiques and say that a tighter crop or focus would lose the sense of a large beach and scattered others. I also am just fine with the subject looking away, especially since it's toward the long reach of sand. For me, it asks a question about what she's looking at. Many photos offer a prepackaged scene. Some invite the viewer to ponder. I find the second kind much more interesting. My only suggestion would be to check the horizon. It is subtly off level. That's the kind of subliminal detail that can elevate or detract from an image. You will alway find people who want a tighter crop. That's what the photo blogs preach. However it's best to look at the so-called rules of composition as tools of composition. Each placement of subject and background will create a different mood and feel. Wide crops offer a sense of place. Tight crops focus attention on the subject. It's the difference between and environmental portrait or a personal one. Neither is better. It's you intention that's important. So I might suggest reversing your order of evaluation. First focus on what you want to accomplish with your photo, then ask how the composition, processing, etc. further your goal in making the image.