Michael McKee

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.

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.

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.

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'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.

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.

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.

The poll on the front page of FujiRumors this morning reveals an issue Fuji will have to overcome. A lot of people want an MF Fuji, but they expect it to be priced like an A7rII. The ONLY time a medium format digital camera has gotten into that price range is Pentax trying to clear inventory of the old 645D (after the 645Z and the A7rII were already out). It's also the only time a medium-format digital camera has had image quality LOWER (in ideal circumstances) than the best smaller format camera on the market (there is no circumstance in which the 6 year old CCD in the 645D produces a better image than the A7rII with a good lens, and vanishingly few where it beats a D810). There are plenty of cases (higher ISOs (above 400), dynamic range) in which an X-Pro 2 can beat that old CCD. The CMOS-based 645Z is around $7000 (and beats all non-MF cameras in shooting situations where MF is the right choice). The only two reasons anyone might want the older 645D with today's competition are if they had a bunch of old Pentax 645 lenses, or as a backup to a 645Z in an area where the CCD was acceptable (product/catalog photography is one example).
 
Nobody would introduce a camera based on a 40 MP CCD today (and I'm guessing Pentax is not making money on 645D's - simply trying to get rid of a few they have around because they introduced the 645Z relatively quickly). If Fuji's entry is based on the 645Z sensor, it might be marginally cheaper than a 645Z, but it won't be a LOT cheaper. My best guess would be $6000 (Pentax is at $7000), and I wouldn't be shocked if it were $7000 or more, since Pentax is very aggressive with their pricing and recycles a lot of their DSLR parts (the 645Z has 27 AF points, but they all fit in an APS-C area at the center of the frame, because it's the K3 AF system). Fuji MIGHT get it to $5000, but that would be breakthrough pricing.
 
If it's any other sensor (newer, larger or higher resolution than the 33x44mm 50MP CMOS from early 2014 at the heart of the 645Z), it'll be more expensive. Right now, Sony makes two possible CMOS sensors - that 50 MP sensor and the much larger 100 MP sensor (which is also probably using their newest copper technology as seen in the A7rII and X-Pro 2). If it's the big sensor, I'd expect the body to be around (or over) $10,000. Still better than the $50,000 Phase One charges, but far from A7rII territory..
 
Sony may very well come up with a ~70 MP sensor that uses the technology of the big sensor, but in the 33x44mm size (it's just cutting technology they have into a different shape and size). That might show up in a $7000 body (and I'd expect it in a similarly priced Pentax at around the same time)... $7000 for a medium format body with 70 million pixels, each as good as an X-Pro 2 or A7rII pixel - that's realistic. $5000 for that would be a bombshell that realigned the top end of the camera market, but not totally impossible.
 
The other way they might surprise us is with a completely different sensor shape. Some people here have been mentioning the X-Pan, and Fuji has always enjoyed fooling with panoramic cameras. What about a 22x44 mm sensor or something like that? 40-50 MP for around $4000? That's not a lot more sensor area than an A7rII, and much of the price premium would be because of relatively small production volumes.
 
Fuji was smart, if they're planning on doing this, to get the X-Processor Pro out in other cameras. Their old processor would have been too limiting even with the 50 MP 645Z sensor, but the new one can handle any sensor they might use. They can recycle parts Pentax style to keep prices down (part of the reason Phase One prices are so high is that they sell a couple of thousand cameras/year, and that's what has to pay their R+D expenses). Even if Fuji and Pentax sell 5000 medium format cameras a year each, they can share the R+D with higher-volume products.

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.