quincy

I always wanted a waist level finder, but I never made the step up to medium format. I like this idea, but I fear it might put too much strain on the screen.

Not too stealthy: http://www.fujifilm.com/products/optical_devices/tv_cine/cine/xk/xk6x20/ There was a thread in the REDuser forum a while ago: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?142550-fujinon-cabrio-20-120

Good luck! Your adapter stacking thing sounds like fun.

I know it's not 100% nature but... klicking takes you to the flickr-page, with bigger versions.

I don't think that a 70 f/1.4 will show up soon, but in the meantime you could have a look at the Samyang/Rokinon 85 f/1.4. That's probably the closest you can get without adapter.

The all new improved bigger better and anyway way cooler lens chart is up (in the first post) and it includes features that were long overdue, like proper axis titles and the angle of view for rectilinear lenses. Enjoy!

Perhaps, instead of adapting, have a look at the Samyang/Rokinon/Walimex/... 100mm F2.8 ED UMC Macro? It's available with an X-Mount.

Hi and Welcome. Just some short thoughts: 1. I don't care what other people think. 2. Fujifilm managers said there will never be IBIS for the X-Mount. Stabilization in the body is called IBIS (In Body Image Stabilisation), stabilization in the lens is called OIS (Optical Image Stabilization). Fuji's prime lenses are faster than the zooms, so the lack of OIS is compensated for a bit, but then the depth of field is shallower. Just select a faster shutter speed. 3. The 18-55 is great. I don't like the cheaper 16-50, but others do. 4. I have used 55 mm polarising filters on the 18-55 and they were vignetting-free, even at 18 mm. I think 52 won't be too bad. But you should use only one ring, don't stack multiple ones. 5. I don't see why not, but what's wrong with the original one? 6. The biggest filter thread is 77 mm right now, on the XF 100-400 and the XF 16-55. 7. You don't have any automatic feature when attaching ANY other lens than a Fujinon or one of the three Zeiss Touits. Other than that, it's fine. So don't attach lenses that can't be controlled manually (focus, zoom, aperture). 8. Fujinon wide angle lenses are distortion free, they are perfect rectilinear. The Samyang 12 mm has a slight barrel distortion, but it's less than 2% which is pretty impressive for a lens that wide, so you could call it rectilinear too. Why do you want distortion anyway? 9. If the built in flash is not powerful enough, you could try the EF-X20. Or the Nissin i40. 10. There is no comparison between the X-T10 + XF18-55 and the G4. Really.

It's always very hard to tell other people what to buy, especially with virtually no information about what they shoot, no example images, and not knowing them. That's why I asked "why not". You said you're a prime shooter, so I suppose you'll be fine with either one of them, 23 or the 35, both sitting right in the middle of the XF 14 (90° coverage) and the XF 90 (18° coverage). There are no really bad fuji lenses. I'd only take the 35/2 WR if you need the weather resistance, otherwise I'd prefer the better corrected 35/1.4 although it's probably focusing a bit slower. Or the 23/1.4 if you want it slightly wider.

With all those new manufacturers coming from asia, it would be very helpful to be able to read chinese/korean/..., I'm pretty sure there is information about those lenses. It's just that I can't find it.

Wow, that's unexpected! Pretty fast and expensive from such an unknown manufacturer. Thanks for posting this, how do you find all those weird lenses? I'll add it to the list with the next update. Right now, I'm working on an improved chart ... okay basically it's the same chart with smaller dots and labeling, and one stop more on the bottom. And more resolution.

Why not?

One of the best interviews I've ever read. And The Revenant was, to me, the best cinematographic experience in years. I was amazed by the smooth camera movement, the wide-angle shots, the long takes, the sun in the frame and just the beauty of the composition throughout the whole movie. So much that I will have to watch it a second time for the story.

Please don't get me wrong, I didn't want to say "HA your monitor isn't calibrated so you can't see the colors right". Eizos are indeed great, right out of the box. I just wanted to eliminate one possible source of error to prevent you from maybe editing all your images slightly wrong. But that does not have to be the case, personal taste is always a factor. Many people like the slightly greenish tint of Nikon/Sony as it is, and as many other people also like the slightly reddish tint of Canon as it is. I personally prefer my colors right in the middle of both, perhaps a bit more to the red side. I use the i1 Display Pro, and it's good enough for me. But I don't think it's better or worse than the Spyder system.

Yep, very nice! Thank You for testing and reporting.

That's something I've noticed very often when looking at images with people in it. Nikon and Sony (my Sony too) are almost always a little on the green side, while canon (and fuji) are a bit more on the red side. For ME on MY monitor, the first shot seems quite fine, a little bit too pink perhaps, the second is clearly too yellow/green, and the last... maybe you just shouldn't use Velvia for that. Phil's images look fine to me, too. Is your monitor calibrated?

What happens when you put that RAW file back on a sd-card and develop a jpeg in camera?

Just one question: Do you guys see "3D noses" and "flat noses"? Because I'm a bit puzzled when looking at the images and reading the accompanying text. Perhaps my brain is too imaginative and fills out the missing depth information in ALL the images... I don't know.

This camera seems to make so much fun! Nice to scroll through your images.

I'm with you on this topic, milandro. I have, to this day, not used a "clear protection filter" nor a "UV filter" on any of my lenses. In my film days, when my front elements got dirty, I just used to clean them with a bit of water and my shirt, a towel or a handkerchief. Now, with the Fuji stuff, I've become a bit more careful. Apart from one incident, nothing more that dust particles have settled on the lenses, which can easily be blown away with a rocket blower. But that one time, I was at the sea, and three of my lenses developed a thin salty crust speckled with sand particles. It was a horror to get that off without scratching anything, kept me busy the whole afternoon and evening. All three lenses are fine, but I'm certain that I'll use a filter the next time I'm close to salty water.

As I remember from toying around with one a while ago, it never was slow. And compared to my XF 27mm F2.8, it's very quiet. It does not have the "LM" designation, so the autofocus motors are no linear motors. Instead, this lens uses a coreless DC motor. Those motors are known for very high acceleration. And since the XF 16 is a wide-angle lens, the focussing groups don't have to move that far to focus.

I wish you good luck with this whole thing, and I hope everything will be alright. This lens looks like it has been dropped twice. Don't know what to tell you in addition to what you already know, but make this as public as possible as soon as possible. And Thank You for the warning!

The insects don't have to be on flowers, right? Young female ruddy darter, resting on an oak leaf. Klicking on the image takes you to the flickr page with bigger versions.

Maybe the problem with the X-T1 is the rubber thumbrest where the status LED is integrated? They would have to replicate that, so they can't just use flat sheet material as they do with their other covers. Just a guess.

In addition to lenstip who do those comparisons and tests really detailed and systematic (example: http://www.lenstip.com/385.8-Lens_review-Fujifilm_Fujinon_XF_27_mm_f_2.8_Vignetting.html), if you have the lens, you can just take an image in RAW+JPEG with the Lens Modulation Optimizer turned on, another one with the Lens Modulation Optimizer turned off, load them all into a RAW developer that does not apply lens corrections automatically (like Adobe does) and compare the images. Oh, and Thank You, Nick05!