Sunglass

I bought the x10 when it first launched. I loved it but got the itch for interchangeable lenses and sold it to go micro four thirds. I bought another this week and was very pleased to use it again. It holds up well. Other cameras will beat it in image quality for sure but it is still a joy to use and ergonomically great. In good light it produces gorgeous images. 

Actually I am still to gather the money. But yr suggestion is precise and will help me out for sure. Thanks. :-) 
Sent from my HTC 10 using Tapatalk

Dr. Nipun,
If you have not resolved your doubts yet, a legacy manual lens is a very attractive alternative. I use Canon FD lenses with the corresponding adaptor. They are quality optics, and while they aré inexpensive, there Is nothing "cheap" about them. Go for a 50mm F1:1,4, or a 85mm f1:1,8. they Willy give you equivalences to 75 and 127mm, which are ideal portrait focal lengths, plus the pleasure of manual handling.

1. Don't buy stuff you don't need.
2. If I need something, the need will last several years or longer.
3. Hence, I throw the boxes away immediately. I'm not a hamster.

I recently sold a XPro1 on Craigslist and I said something like this.  "I think it's pretty silly that people want the box the camera comes in so here's what I'll do.
This is the price for the camera, if you want the box it's going to be $50 more.  Same camera but if you feel it's a better camera with the box then you'll have to pay."
Got some nasty replies from people for questioning their psychological need for the box.
Ended up selling it to a person that said he couldn't care less if it had a box or not.

Wow. I'm new to this forum, but I'm on a few other hobby related ones. I'm always amazed by people's negativity. Photography is an art, and the camera is the tool. If someone chooses to personalize their tool and share it, let them. If you don't care for it, then keep your snippy little comments to yourself.
 
If you don't have anything nice to say, than don't say it all. Something we all should have learned in kindergarten.

Ken is a goofball, but he puts a good bit of info out there and it can be useful info. The reviews themselves border on clickbait.  Entertaining, perhaps. Hey, it's his opinion and he's entitled to it. Before you give any weight to his evaluation of color, go look at his work and you'll understand where he's coming from. I would describe it as lurid. Or exaggerated. Perhaps bat-shit crazy. Maybe that look sells in SoCal. I actually like it sometimes, but generally not my thing. But there is good info in there when it can be separated from the clickbait in which it is embedded.

One minute he is knocking Leica then in another he is recommending them. No consistency so I just read his tests occasionally just for a laugh. If I had followed his advice I would have a very odd outfit. 

Lenses are needed for any camera to work, the size of it is of course fully detrimental to the whole system's size.
 
If I am to buy the XF 23 F1.4 lens, should I complain about its size ? No, that lens is the size it needs to be for an F1.4 aperture, no matter what, you still can not bend the law of physics, the Nikkor 24-70 VR lens is doing a good job at showing that example, the non VR lens was already big, the VR version is just got larger because of the extra space needed for the stabilisation to work.
 
Want smaller lenses ? Go to an even smaller system, m4/3 is also a very good balance of size/weight even in the lenses department, but again, F2.8 zooms are going to be large on it, it's the same thing repeating itself all over the place and the general pro-sumer market can not, or will not understand.
The Nikon 1 system is another good example, I can have the heaviest of any Nikon 1 body, with 3 lenses, that covers wide angle with super zoom and "nifty fifty" all this for roughly the weight of a Nikon D800 body only. But in exchange, my IQ is taking a dip to counter balance the gain in size/weight.
 
There will always be a trade-off somewhere, until someone figure out a way to bend our laws of physics, thing will remain as they are. In the end, buy whatever makes you feel good and don't bother too much with what happens to the sides.
 
It's just a tool after all.

That certainly is but, If I may, isn’t it the same side of a different medal that we are seeing being forged over here too?
 
I believe the title of this thread suggests that as Sony went into an ever  larger “ small camera” system ( which, I think, is an undeniable fact)  so, the same could happen to Fuji if the would listen to some customers asking ( ore dare I say “ voting”) for lenses with huge diameter front elements and extended range and last, but by no means the least, a larger grip to accommodate large hands and provide more battery capacity.
 
One of the reasons to redesign the 35mm and probably the 23mm which is said to come soon, is the fact that the current models of these lenses impair the vision of the OVF on the X pro 2, true, this is, for some people like the friend that I’ve talked about, little more than an aesthetic function, for some, but a very important one for the image of that camera.
 
Some of the Fuji crowd are “ demanding” improved video functions , and we are told that this would among other “ problems” overheat the camera and drain the batteries, so the temptation must be big to put the new versions of the sensor into a larger body capable to dissipate the heat. This may come with the X-T2.
 
But don’t forget the demand for the 35mm f1 ( and even larger longer lenses)!
 
 
If all of these “ demands” were to be satisfied we will end up with a large , small sensor camera! An oxymoron , a contradiction in terms.

I think that rather than comparing the Zeiss FE 35mm f/2.8 against the Fuji XF18mm f/2.0, you should look at the Sony 50mm f/1.8 against the Fuji 35mm f/2.0:
 

 
The Fuji is the FF equivalent of a 52.5mm lens, while the Sony is 1/3rd stop faster. No need to draw funny lines trying to convince the reader that a lens a stop faster is just as big as its slower full frame rough equivalent by a few millimeters. 
 
Now for the acid test, let's compare the Fuji XF 35mm f/1.4 to the Sony 50mm f/1.8. The Fuji has the disadvantage of being 2/3rd stop faster, as well as a slightly longer FF equivalent field of view, but it still beats the Sony hands in the compactness department:
 

 
In terms of IQ, I can tell you from testing myself that the Fuji 35mm f/1.4 compares extremely well to the Sony-Zeiss 55mm f/1.8, despite the Fuji being half the price.
 
I would also LOVE to be able to compare the Fuji 23mm f/1.4 against the Sony-Zeiss 35mm f/1.4! But sizecomparison.com don't allow you to pick this combination. I've messaged them to ask them to add it, I would encourage you all to the do the same.

Interesting that I've create such a stir. I haven't been following all of the fora I've cross posted to, because before I could cross-post to the Fuji-X Forum, Petapixel contacted me and I spend some hours turning it into a publishable article. In fact a couple of websites contacted me with editors who agreed with what I wrote, but Petapixel got in first. The version on Petapixel is the final version, the stuff previously posted to other fora are draft versions.

I see someone is comparing a Zeiss FE 35mm f/2.8 Vs the XF18mm f/2.0. The latter is one stop faster! It is not a counter-argument at all since if you read my article, I make it clear that I fully acknowledge that when shooting with pancake type lenses the size advantage of FF mirrorless can be seen. That's why I keep repeating that it's a critique of professional grade full frame mirrorless—as opposed to just using it for casual walkabout shooting with a pancake or quasi-pancake slow lens. The problem is when you start mounting faster professional grade lenses on the body that this size advantage business falls apart. It's absurd to keep showing pictures of a Sony FF with pancake type lenses and repeating the argument ad nauseam that FF mirrorless is superior because it is inherently more compact.
 
The bottom line is that FF mirrorless is fine as an option for casual walkabout shooting, but you are still better off with a DSLR/DSLT for more serious professional grade work, because these are faster and the lenses are more compact, which is important when carrying multiple lenses on a shoot.
 
This made me cringe:
 
"The lenses are big because it’s high quality glass, for example the new 85mm GM lens is made for ultimate quality"
 
We'll see what the independent reviews say, but irrespective of the quality of the lens, it still doesn't change the fact that it totally undermines any size advantage inherent to mirrorless. Sony could make big and high quality lenses for A mount too. "Mirrorless is better because the lenses are bigger and higher quality" is hardly a credible argument for why mirrorless is an inherently better camera design. Hey my Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4 is BIG and HEAVY, built for "ultimate quality", but I'm hardly going to say that this decisively proves that DSLRs are a superior camera design. My lens is bigger than yours, therefore my camera is better too! And more compact! Honestly...
 
As for this:
 
"It’s not the 'mirrorless' aspect that makes Sony FF attractive. But mirrorless is necessary for most of these innovative features to exist."
 
What innovative features? IBIS was first put into A mount DSLRs by Minolta back in 2003. EVF/exposure preview was already in Sony DSLRs/DSLTs long before an a7 ever existed. You can put eye detect AF into an A mount. You can put a Sony BSI sensor into A mount. None of these innovations are unique or inherent technical characteristics specific to mirrorless. I mean, really, "the fact that my a7RII has a 42MP BSI sensor definitively proves that mirrorless is an inherently superior camera design"? It won't be long before Nikon or Pentax will have their hands on the same Sony BSI sensor for their DSLRs.
 
I appreciate that the concern about the theoretical potential for negative impact on IQ that having an APS-C non-IBIS forced to do overtime as a FF IBIS mount is speculative. But why did they do this? How technically difficult is it to overcome this handicap? Yes, this is a grave uncertainty that hangs over the future of the FE mount, and without precise engineering data from the lab we are reduced to speculating about how bad this problem really is. However, the fact that the Sigma CEO expressed concerns about the fact that it is more difficult to design lenses for such a mount is a fact that is out in the public sphere, and hardly a matter of speculation. Even Zeiss admit it is "challenging" to develop ultra wide angle lenses for the FE mount. The increased R&D costs to overcome these difficulties clearly are being passed onto the buyer, because such hurdles retard lens development. The onus of proof firmly reassuring us that having an APS-C non-IBIS dimension mount function as a FF IBIS mount will have absolutely NO negative impact on IQ, or increase the costs of lens R&D/manufacture just to overcome the handicap (that need to be handed on to the consumer), rests squarely on the Sony fanboys.
 
I dare any of these a7 series fanboys to make an official statement on behalf of Sony that turning an APS-C non-IBIS dimension mount into a FF IBIS mount unconditionally stating that this:
 
1. Cannot possibly increase the difficulties associated with lens development
2. Cannot possibly cause degradation in IQ
3. Cannot possibly increase the cost of R&D and manufacture to bring them on par with competitors
4. Cannot possibly cause FE mount lenses to be more expensive than DSLR FF lenses
4. Cannot possibly stop third parties like Sigma and Tamron from developing cost-alternative FE mount optons
 
Even if one of them was foolish enough to do so, why would we believe even a word of this?

I don’t know whether what happened to Sony might happen to Fuji too.
 
I don’t think that, at this point, there would ever be a Fuji full frame ( while there might be a “ medium format” with fixed lens and optical adapters, a bit like an overgrown X100T)  and I agree, as the article puts it, a mirrorless full frame offers more a fad than a well thought logical choice since the “ advantages” over a more traditional design are minimal at best.
 
 
In my view, once a company defines the identity of a product which turn out to be a success ( small size of camera and lenses, high quality image, retro feel and looks) reason has it that that company should stick to what made this camera a success... but we are seeing a certain amount of Fuji users demanding things which go in a direction which is absolutely contrary to the product identity ( as seen and established to date).
 
 
 
So they are asking light efficient large lenses ( which would impair the view of the OVF for those using it and would bring the camera out of balance) and larger grips for more battery life while the logic would suggest using smaller lenses and develop better batteries to stay within the idea of compactness and avoid adding weight and size to something that sells because it is small.
 
 
In the end we might end up with the largest small camera in the APS-C world, who knows?
 
On the other hand, do I really care of what the future will bring?
 
Within the Fuji system I found my own niche and I am happy.  I admit not being interested in comparing my cameras with other systems... because I just simply don’t care. Maybe there are better cameras out there but would I make any better pictures with them? I doubt it.
 
The only important thing is how comfortable I am with camera and the software that I use.
 
Frankly speaking that’s another area in which I really don’t obsess too much. I found something that works for me (although others might find unrefined or even technically objectionable) and I do it. I am reasonably happy with the results. At this point in time, my like my judgement on the things that I do is the only one judgement that I really care about.
 
I don’t have to please anyone else than myself and I am not unhappy.
 
I made my choice based mostly on the feel and looks of the X cameras and that’s that. I really don’t care that this that or the other system are “ better” or worse.
 
Often I see people announcing their divorce from the Fuji system and selling all their equipment (more often than not at a gigantic loss) when I read the reason why that happens ( with very few exceptions mentioning limitations which impair a particular thing, but then I wonder why one committed so heavily to one system...) I think that those who do that must be crazy but hey, farewell, to each his own!
 
 
Of course there will be contradictions from Fuji’s part and maybe a faux pas or two ( like the release or lack of release of Kaizen) but it’s all in the game.
 
At this point, frankly speaking, with my two cameras ( X-E2 and X-T1) several lenses : Samyang 8mm fish eye, 12mm , Fuji 18-55, 60, 50-230, Pentax Macro 100mm, Helios 58mm, Meyer Göerz 50, and few adapters I am mostly done with buying.
 
I might buy something else but, unless a camera will fail I may never “ need” to replace it.
 
Which brings me to people continuously “ updating”. Does everyone “ need” the update? Really?

Seven Fuji X models use ISO 100 as their base: X10, X20, X30, X-S1, XF1, XQ1, XQ2. That's because they use a different sensor type that has a different base sensitivity.
 
IIRC, cameras such as the Arri Alexa use base ISO 800, and the Leica Monochrom uses base ISO 320.

the compact that made me switch to fuji x lens system from pentax. brilliant little camera, after 3 years I still love it and it keeps in perfect condition

Of course, I would also like the latest greatest Fujifilm x-series camera - but I am still happy with my x10.

I like the X-Pro2 but miss an eye-cup. Being left-eyed I don't come close enough to the viewfinder to avoid stray light. Since there are no eye-cups available (at least that I am aware of), I decided to make one. I bought Nikons DK-19, which has the right diameter. I then took out the small rubber ring around the viewfinder and stitched it to the DK-19 with an ordinary sewing needle and thread. Using black thread it became almost invisible. I then pressed the ring back into the grove around the viewfinder.
To me it has been an improvement.
An alternative would have been to glue it to the ring with rubber cement. But then it would be difficult to remove without traces. But I suppose that a new viewfinder ring wouldn't cost much.

Hi,
 
I'm paranoid with lens scratching or accidents, always used like a hoya super hmc uv filter
or Marumi brand on my lens.
 
I don't really know if fuji sensor or lens don't like extra glass on them. Issue or no issue?
 
I know its age old of use or don't use. Just curious. The 18-55mm with 58mm diameter is quite large,
not going to be a cheap one.
 
If all goes well, will have a x-t10 in my hands fairly soon. Decided to wait it out on the x-t2.

Hello! My opinions: -The question is "What differences can you see?" 99% of photographers won't see any difference in term of sharpness between APS-c and FF.
-Theorical differences are well known: a/ dof b/ low light situation. That's all.
-lens,PP and uses are as important as the camera itself.
-Don't worry about sharpness. Don't waste your time reading charts, graphics and so on. Learn how to shoot a great photo.
-99% photographies on the web are post-processed.
-Choosing a brand isn't a simple question of sharpness: menus (as you say),sustainability, roadmap, warranty, community, personal feeling...

X-T1 with Canon 135 f:3.5.

KwyjiboVanDeKamp! Amazing Test! I think I should share it also on FujiRumors sooner or later... would that be fine for you? I'd love to give to your test the best visibility possible.

Thanks for your appreciation!!! If you think that all/most FR readers are interested in such an article then do so. Thanks.

Canon 135mm f/2 on Fuji XT1 with fontasy adapter 

Hello everyone, I'm new to these forums and I allows me to post a picture taken with the X-T1 and 50 f: 1.4 SSC.