cug

Probably because there isn't much to do. It already had a fairly decent AF system, already had Classic Chrome and while I wish for quite a lot of improvements, I don't think they rank high on Fuji's list.

No doubt. I love mine.

Set your camera to shoot raw+Fine and you get what you're looking for. The embedded JPEG when shooting raw only is a smaller version which also takes away the ability to check critical focus in camera.

The X100T is about one year old right now. If Fuji follows the same cycle from before, a new version is due in 6 to 10 months. That could go along with the rumors that the X-Pro2 is coming in January, I expect the next X100 series camera to have the same, hopefully new sensor and some other improvements. Although, if you like the X100 series, the X100T is a great camera, so if it's the right camera concept for you, go ahead and don't wait, current discounts are pretty good.

If you are not, you're not making a great point in how you express it. If you compare two true 35mm lenses on a fixed sensor size, they are producing the same angle of view. With the examples you give you're just muddling the waters more. If you compare two 35mm on the same camera and sensor that is a totally valid comparison and they should (as long as the 35mm are actuals and not "roughly 35mm" like on many lenses) lead to exactly the same result. Sure, 35mm lenses built for different "sensor" sizes have different projection circles and therefore different difficulties to deal with, but they are still 35mm lenses and when projecting on the same sensor give the same angle of view. That they aren't meant for "only" this angle of view is a different story, if you compare them on an APS-C sized sensor you're actually generally cutting off the parts where the lenses built for a larger projection circle fall off and therefore they can sometimes deliver better results across the smaller frame than on their native mounts. I totally understand what you are saying, my opinion is that you're not making your point very clear. As long as you always take the same projection area from each lens, a 35mm is a 35mm is a 35mm lens. There's no difference in angle of view when compared on the same "sensor size". Whether they are meant for that sensor size is a different story.

I have a feeling you are mixing concepts of focal length and projection circle.

Why would this be silly? Comparing a 35 to a 35 is exactly the right thing. The Fuji 35 isn't a "normal 50mm" lens, it's a 35mm lens. That it doesn't render an image circle that fits a FF sensor is a different story but has nothing to do with the physical focal length of the lens. You are actually doing the Leica a favor here as this lens is made to render an image circle filling a larger surface sensor or film with a good image, on APS-C you are just taking "the good parts". You'll have much more drop off in quality towards the corners when you put this lens on a FF sensor.

Lifestyle shoot in London, basically walking around the Westminster area and taking photos ... ;-) Most photos taken with the new XF35 f/2: Farhanah by Guido Neitzer, on Flickr Farhanah by Guido Neitzer, on Flickr Farhanah by Guido Neitzer, on Flickr Farhanah by Guido Neitzer, on Flickr Farhanah by Guido Neitzer, on Flickr Farhanah by Guido Neitzer, on Flickr Farhanah by Guido Neitzer, on Flickr Farhanah by Guido Neitzer, on Flickr And one from the XF56: Farhanah by Guido Neitzer, on Flickr

UHS-II cards provide more speed by offering a "wider path" to the storage (using more pins, basically pushing more bits at the same time). If the camera can't support that, a UHS-I card using a "narrower path" better can be faster. So, what you are seeing is that your camera can't use the higher throughput because it can't use the additional data paths. Not the card is slow, you just bought the wrong card for your camera. If you want to test raw speed of your card, put it in an adequate card reader with a fast connection to a fast port on a computer: That's about 204MB/sec write speed to a Lexar 2000x card. Tested on a MacBook 12", Lexar card reader through USB-C to USB adapter. Here's what a Sandisk Extreme Pro can do on the same system: About 72MB/sec. That's about a third of the speed. Now, sure, it's interesting to know what the camera can do, but it all depends on the overall system. Unfortunately, I don't have a Lexar 1000x card here for testing.

I'd say that's a matter of taste. I like the X-T1 a hell of a lot better in terms of looks than either the X-Pro or X-E series or even the X-T10. And you need some space for a large EVF. Would probably work fine in the X-Pro size, don't know about the X-E.

I would never claim that a kit of these two would make any sense at all. Owning both makes sense for me for several reasons, but they mostly don't apply to others.

I do own both the 35mm 1.4 and the 2.0. One reason is that I often share my Fuji kit with my wife. We try to not duplicate most focal lengths, but 35 is just such an important focal length for us, that I have no problems owning both. I also own the 27 and the 23 and an X100T (and a TCL-X100). They all satisfy different desires, therefore it works for me. Plus, I'm in the lucky position to not have to worry about the cost.

I have no numbers around this but I very often: "I already have the 23, but during the next lens sale I'll grab a 27 as well - at sales price it's a total steal". Right now it's $150 off, not too bad in my opinion. When I got mine it was $200 off, same as the XF23, so I paid $49 on top of MSRP for the 23 and got a 27 as well. Optically I like both, sure they are different, but they are both very good for what they are. Mechanically I love the 23. Size wise I love the 27. Overall I think it's great to have both. I can convert my X-T1 into a very compact camera. Or I can use it with the bigger 23/56 combo. The 27 is an "always in the bag" lens, plain because there is always a reason for a compact camera when I'm traveling. But I totally see your point. It is a weird package. Combos I could understand would be 18+35/1.4, 23+56, 35/2+90. Stuff like that kind of makes sense to me. The 27 is kind of a single lens thing to me.

To use the 23 when you don't care about weight and size and the 27 when you do? It's a weird offer, but I guess it's not too uncommon for people to have both of these lenses. It doesn't make sense as a "starter kit" though. But I wouldn't recommend the X-Pro1 as a Fuji system starter camera anyways - too many quirks still remaining and a new camera coming. This sounds like an offer for people who want a second body or are already in the Fuji system and "always" wanted an X-Pro1 body as well.

The only flash I'm aware of that allows HSS with the X-T1 is the Nissin i40 in manual mode and with some trickery to get it into HSS.

Personally I'd go for the 90, but it's a matter of personal style - do you rather get closer or do you often work in constraint space? Then the 56 is the more versatile option. Optically, I love my 56, although I wish it had slightly smoother OoF rendering - exactly what the 90mm has. Still, for all it's worth, this difference doesn't matter too much in the real world - it's more important that the lens fits what you like to do with it. I find a three lens kit with a wide spread to be the best for me. But again, that's a personal thing. Some people like to have a continuous zoom range from 16 to 140mm (APS-C), others take two fast primes and do the rest with sneaker zoom. You pick what works for you.

Maybe ... NOT. I like the 56 and use it from time to time. I use it actually a lot more than the 23. The 23 makes no sense to me somehow. It's just too heavy and big for an all-day-lens for my personal taste. That's probably why I never really got into the 35mm FoV - I like the X-T1 use better than the X100T and hate the size of the XF23 in comparison to the X100T or even the XF35 or XF18. Don't care how good it is, it's just too big. The 56 is a special purpose lens, therefore not that much of a problem and I use it often enough, but would pick either the 35 or the 90 if I didn't have the 56.

For quite about a year I used XF14, XF35 and a manual focus Minolta M-Rokkor 90mm f/4 as my kit. It was light, small, unobtrusive and optically great. Fuji basically lets you decide whether you want fast or small or even something in-between. Kits I use: XF23, XF56, X-T1 XF14, XF35 (either f/1.4 or now f/2, I own both), X-T1, sometime I add either 56 or the above mentioned 90 X100T + TCL-X100 I think I could easily live without the 56, but would love to have a slightly faster 90. The XF90 is a super nice lens but seems to big for my taste. I might get an f/2.8 Leica at some point and live with manual focus. Not a problem on the big viewfinder of the X-T1. Right now I'm in London and have X-T1, X-E2 + XF23, XF35 f/2 and XF56 with me. Nice kit, but I took the wide and the long lens only because I was planning an environmental portrait shoot - that unfortunately didn't happen. Could have used just the XF35 f/2 or the f/1.4 and be done with it.

The problem with phones is control. Images from a phone look great on a phone, but when you look closer, it often falls apart quickly. From the same spot at the same time, but different settings of course as I do have the control on the camera, but not as much on the phone:

Thanks, I thought I remembered a review but didn't find it. For reference: I agree with the emoticons. They are hard to interpret. For me, you can generally always imagine an "ironic smile" next to what I write as that is what I normally am. Or cynic. Otherwise I try to make it clear when I'm not.

In case you haven't noticed, I put a smiley after my comment. It is very hard to recommend a bag without giving other recommendations. And you showed your bag in the photo (A Jill-e Design Jack? Looks like a great bag. Have a review on it?). I tried to do the same, I could have described my three ways of packing photo gear (small shoulder bag, larger shoulder bag, plain hiking daypack), but I refrained from doing so as I thought your advise was very sound - not recommend a specific bag, but explain the various concepts.

I have to say, that I disagree slightly. I haven't done extensive testing here just yet, but so far I think that the two lenses are only comparable up to f/2.8. Beyond that, the old f/1.4 is plain better across the frame. It might not have the exact same high center sharpness but it stomps the new f/2 in the corners and along the edges from f/4 (or even slightly more open) on. The new one beats the hell out of the old one mechanically though. It feels nearly as good as my M-Rokkor lens. Very solid, compact and just plain "lovely". The old one always felt loose and a bit rattly. From my perspective after a week of using the new one: if you mostly shoot at f/2 to f/2.8 the new one is great. Mechanically it is far superior to the old in my personal opinion. But overall the old one is optically at least one class above the new.

I kind of agree with not recommending certain brands or bags in particular, but I am going to give some reasoning for one bag type or another, just like milandro - although he said he wouldn't do it, he still said that he doesn't like small bags and advises you on lens and body selection. Whether they matter to you or not he ignored ... So, no matter what you carry, there are certain things you need to keep in mind: Shoulder bags are less comfortable to wear than backpacks over a longer period of time. Shoulder bags mostly give nice quick access from the top but often don't allow sections of the bag to be accessed independently. Backpacks often have ways of attaching a decent sized tripod on the outside. Leather looks nicer but is often less weather resistant than other materials. I like leather, but it's not for everyone. Leather is heavier. Thick and stiff protection is, in my personal opinion, completely overrated. You can use any backpack with a few neoprene pouches for lenses if you are okay with a slightly longer lens change time. If you want a bag that carries all things you listed, put these things in another bag you have already at home and check the weight - do you want to carry all that weight in a shoulder bag? Does it drive you towards a backpack? Do you, for whatever reason prefer a certain style of bag? Like my wife will not use a shoulder bag, she's a backpack type, I prefer a shoulder bag, but do use a normal daypack as well when the circumstances make it a better choice. Dedicated camera bags are often much more expensive than more feature-rich standard bags which you could put to use with a camera insert. My take on finding a good bag to start: Try the amount of gear you want to carry in terms of weight and size with a bag you own (you don't need to go out, just pack it carefully inside and see how it handles), that determines weight and size of gear. Pick any bag that looks like it might fit your gear and goes along with the style and look you want. It's good if it's not an expensive bag, look for used ones. Use it for a while and find out what works and what doesn't for you. With #3 out of the way, go out and buy the right bag.

I found the XF14 not to be too great in that regard. The 18-55 on the other hand does this very nicely:

I store mine in a cabinet with a glass door. Not because it's a display, but it's the only place in the house where I have space for the camera ... ;-) Actually, I have this: - Domke F10JD containing X-E2 with 18-55 mounted + XF35 f/1.4, sitting in one shelf of the cabinet - Billingham Hadley Small with X100T + TCL-X100 + EF-X20 and some small assorted stuff sitting next to the Domke - Billingham Hadley Pro containing X-T1 with XF35 f/2 mounted, XF23 and XF56 + Nissin i40 + assorted stuff, sitting next to the shelf The Domke is my wife's go to bag. The Hadley Pro is my go to bag when I'm planning more elaborate shots, the Hadley Small is my fun go to and vacation bag. I have a bunch of other lenses sit on the shelf above the two small bags: Macro lenses, adapted lenses, speciality lenses (14, 27) and all the other bits and pieces like a set of flashes and triggers in their pouches, grips and other assorted bits and pieces. Overall, I don't think it matters too much, but I wouldn't store on an open shelf just due to dust collection.