Aswald

I thought this is very interesting....my preference is obvious but what do you guys think? http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/22/6055591/iphone-vs-pro-camera

Xpro2 as my main camera. Xpro1 & XT1 as backup. The only thing I could use that's missing from the XPro1 is a quicker AF system.....and maybe better high ISO performance.

I love the ambience of churches so it'll work for me. Won't be in Milan until next year. Otherwise, I'll find my way there for sure. You do have a collection of very interesting photos. Definitely exhibition material. May you have a successful exhibition Paul.

Nice. Love the venue....

That's a very nice pic. The B&W conversion is beautiful.

I read that Nikon's FM series diopters will fit Fujifilm.....

If I wanted to feel "superior", yes, I would get it in a heartbeat.

I'd buy it for the looks. And shoot wide open.

Excellent! I don't need another 35 but I'd buy it for the looks! Besides, you can shoot this lens wide open with excellent results.

It looks like 2 layers of screen protection. 1 plastic type over the lcd screen and another lamination type over the screen protector. Double protection?

Anytime. For weddings I find that this works best for me. Camera 1. Body + 24-70 F2.8 or 24 F1.4 or 35 F1.4 Camera 2. Body + 50 F1.2 or 85 F1.2 or 70-200 F2.8 One camera covers a wide perspective and the other camera have better reach when the chance pops up. Unfortunately, most weddings I shoot are rather hectic. Apart from 2 cameras, there's sometimes a 2nd photographer. However, I've also shot more intimate weddings where a single photographer and a single camera works very well. I guess, based on the requirements of the type of wedding you shoot, you my be able to decide if a 2nd body or a new lens makes more sense for you. I wish you the very best.

For speed, new body.....and perhaps try to upgrade to the XF16-55 F2.8. For creative perspective, a new lens, say the XF90, XF56 or even the XF50-140 depending on your usual working distance. In any case, I'd try to keep the XF35. It's a fantastic lens.

Nice!

Thanks Patrick. I like the X Magazine. Pretty good resolution.

Depending on what you want to achieve., yes and no. Fujifilm cameras works best with their native lenses, as with all other camera brands. If your life depends on it or if you're a pro earning a living from taking photographs on assignments then a fuss free, efficient setup is what you may want to look at. In this scenario, native Fujifilm lenses is probably the way to go. However, if you're an enthusiast or a photographer taking photos for your own enjoyment then please, you may use whatever lenses you can find an adapter for. In this respect, there is no "better" or "worse" lenses. There are only different lenses which gives different effect.

Nicely Done.

Really nice office but the view is better

Anytime. Both the Fotodiox adapters I have are decently built. I would buy their products again. Like you said, it'll be perfect if they all come with s/steel mount.

I can concur with you on the AL mount. A few of them claim to be high grade aluminium. That's why I am very careful mounting adapters to camera bodies. I'm a little more worried after reading your post. Here's what I think. The M42 lenses has an FFD of 45.46mm. The Fujifilm has an FFD of 17.7mm. With these measurements, you have plenty of distance for an standard M42 adapter. It just need to be 27.8mm back of lens to camera mount. Fotodiox has guaranteed that their standard M42 adapter will achieve infinity focus. On the FX/M adapter the specified extension is 0 - 30mm. This means that it only needs to extend 15mm both ends to achieve a total of 30mm. 15mm extension is easily built into the 30mm or so space they have to work with. I found "copies" of the FX/M adapter which states "Functions as a Standard adapter or Macro extension adapter". So, I thought...why would Fotodiox make a macro adapter which only extends 30mm and not let it achieve infinity focus? Food for thought. The Fotodiox FD to FX adapter is about 22mm FFD. Canon FD lenses need 42mm FFD. I do a rough estimate of FD lens + Adapter to get 39.70mm. That's less than 42mm. It also explains why I don't have to turn the focusing ring all the way to get infinity focus. There is always some room left. If you really want to be sure, you may write or contact Fotodiox but my suspicion is the FX/M will focus to infinity at it's minimum setting (macro helicoid retracted). I would buy without worries if I needed it. For Reference, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance

Perhaps readers wanted to know what specifically you wanted to know about the adapter. Won't know until you read the full post. This is what I know about this 42 to FX/M adapter. Macro capability is enhanced via the extra helicoid focusing thread that extends the length of the adapter at both ends, increasing the magnification of the attached M42 lens. When you are not shooting macro however, you'd set the helicoid to minimum. At the retracted (minimum) setting, it DOES focus to infinity like any other adapter. I've just gotten the normal Fotodiox FD to FX adapter and they are well built and focuses to infinity. More info here, with confirmation that it does focus to infinity. https://www.fotodioxpro.com/fotodiox-pro-lens-mount-adapter-m42-screw-mount-lens-to-fujifilm-x-fx-mount-camera-body-with-macro-focusing-helicoid-for-fuijifilm-x-pro1-x-e1-w-macro-focusing-ability.html Hope this helps.

Perhaps this has something to do with it?

Very nice. Thx for sharing

Yes, any stereo 3.5-->2.5mm adapter will do. Get one with a nice clean "gold" coating. Contrary to popular believe, slightly matte gold finish is better than really shinny ones. The only thing I can think of for a lavalier mic is the range. If you plan to stand far away from the camera, you may have to go for an on camera wireless transmitter system. It's sort of like a wireless flash trigger except it transmit audio signals. Some links. I have not had the need to use these so I hope these links helps. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/newsLetter/Camera-Mount-Wireless-Microphones.jsp

I've tried Rode Stereo Mic on the X-T1 and it works fine using a 3.5 --> 2.5mm adapter. The ATR3350IS Lavalier mic should work fine on your X-T10 without the smartphone adapter. You will still need the 3.5-->2.5 adapter. The smartphone adapter is for smartphone use where the jacks are different to cater for both mic-in and headphones-out (monitoring). The X-T10 2.5mm ports does not cater for headphone monitoring. If you look at the standard stereo jack against the smartphone 3.5mm jack, you will notice that there are only 3 segments instead of 4 for the smartphone. This is where they differ, an additional contact point for the mic. Unless you plan to use the lavalier with a smartphone also, you may also purchase the same model without the smartphone adapter but seeing that there's an offer on this model, it's ok to buy. Good luck.