johant

Looks like the original Fujinon primes implemented it this way, while the later primes and zooms do not return to the MF position. There's probably a good reason for that, but I don't like it.

Tiny!? Shows that everything is a matter of perspective

Thanks! Rico (aka flysurfer) mentioned that the optical configuration of the pre-production lenses was different from the final product. Any details on that?

HIC SVNT DRACONES

Ja, over smaak valt niet te twisten ... je hebt het, of je hebt het niet

Where the Takumar 55/1.8 is great though, is for portraits. The reduced contrast, and the slight softness, gives a beautiful rendering and "glow". The Takumar tele primes (135mm and 200mm) are reasonably sharp, but suffer from CA (green shift mainly). I must admit that I have not tried my 35/3.5 on the Fuji cameras yet. Why would I, having the XF 35/1.4?

Not only that, but (PU) leather feels nicer to the touch than rubberised plastic, and the leather layer makes the grip more pronounced without really adding bulk.

I still have my Pentax Takumar lenses, which were first rate at the time. The Fujinon XF primes blow them out of the water.

Because it's not about the weight?

It probably has a PU base indeed ... the through and through leather cases (I presume) are advertised as "full cow hide leather". Anyway, no complaints for €16

The pictures from my X-Pro1 are every bit as good as from the X-T1 (as they should be), so I am surprised by your story. I didn't like the 18-55 on the X-Pro1 though; I use it with the 18mm and 35mm primes exclusively.

It's a Chinese online market place. I let my daughter test the case with her nose (much better than mine), and she says leather, no doubt. Unless, like milandro speculated, they may have sprayed the case with leather scent from a can

No. The XC 16-50 is the real underdog.

I already saw used X-T1s being offered for around €750 in the Netherlands ... sounds like an interesting deal to me.

Competitors? Really? I think many users enjoy contributing to both sites. That also explains why you could see similar threads. Edit: I think they exist longer than this forum, so their claim of the "original" Fuji X forum seems justified

The link is in my first post ... the cases are sold on AliExpress, by the Joynang shop. They sell on EBay too, but at higher prices (EBay fees?).

A good thing is that the half case has a solid feeling steel bottom frame, so it won't bend easily, and that it looks to be finished well (the stitching). I am sure that a Gariz or Fuji case will be higher quality, but this is probably good enough for me.

lol true ... nose says natural leather, but I am easily deceived in those matters

Hi all, Given the price of my newly bought (from China) X-T1 half case, I should not complain either way ... but is there a way by just looking to see (e.g. from the grain) whether this is genuine leather or PU leather? The item was described as genuine leather, by the way. Whatever material it is, I am surprised by the quality, given that it cost me €16 to get it shipped to my door (it was discounted when I ordered it) Thanks! No affiliation with the seller, but here is the link: http://www.aliexpress.com/item/New-Classical-Genuine-Leather-half-body-camera-case-set-for-Fujifilm-Fuji-X-T1/32658211547.html

I find it much easier with the X-Pro1 and X-E1 due to the button layout. On the X-T1, it's not really useful for me. But then, that camera is also more responsive.

If Easyhdr uses dcraw underneath, would there be a reason why the other dcraw based products (RT and LightZone, I believe) should not be able to implement this? I did a quick comparison with Silkypix V7, and the fine foliage rendered in Easyhdr seems to be slightly better indeed. However, the difference is probably not enough for my maximum print size (30X45cm). Thanks for pointing out, and it's worth experimenting

Yes, of course, I should have specified that I meant the hyperfocal distance, and not "infinity" Which again doesn't say that much, because it is aperture value dependent (I used f/8) ... But at 100m (wildlife distance?), the horizontal field of view becomes: 135.0 17m 200.0 12m 300.0 8m 500.0 5m

double post

So you're all looking for exceptions to my "many cases" now? My guess is that many telezooms are used for compressed landscapes and for zoo or bird show pictures. In such cases the difference between 200mm and 300mm usually is not dramatic. If cropping would always be an option, I would have written "all cases"

Taking the X-Pro1 and X-E2 as examples, the X-Pro1 feels substantially more solid. I do not know if it is more reliable though, or just feels like that (since most failures are electronic nowadays).