Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Fuji X Series > Fuji Digital General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

23mm on X100T or 23/1.4
Old 10-23-2015   #1
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
 
Trius's Avatar
 
Trius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Posts: 8,257
23mm on X100T or 23/1.4

Hello from someone you may have thought was long gone (if you know me from the past) ... but here I am back at least for a bit. I may not post much, but I will be checking in more than once every three years.

I've made my decision regarding adopting a "real" digital camera/system. As a loyal Olympus/OM and Oly RF user for decades, I naturally have been inclined to put Olympus and m4/3 at the top of my list, but I just can't do it. Fuji got the camera controls right, and the size and weight seem to hit a sweet spot.

Naturally the sensor and in-camera processing had to be right, and no one I know of really complains about those elements. And of course, the Fuji XF lenses are excellent. (I've used Fujinon glass on 4x5 and in the darkroom, and they have never let me down, so I'm not surprised in the least.)

So before I make my final decision between the X100T and an interchangeable X-mount body, I'd like opinions on the 23/2 on the X100T and the 23/1.4.

Assuming the sensor/in-camera processing to be equivalent, are there any substantial differences between the lenses?

Just to be clear, I am not concerned with any differences in functionality of different camera bodies -- i.e., yes the X100T is fixed lens with "only" auxiliary lenses and X-mount bodies provide greater choice and flexibility. That doesn't enter into my decision. If I were to go X-mount body and 23/1.4, the 23 would be stuck on the body 100% of the time for a long time.

Final note: I'm not giving up film. I will keep one or two OM bodies and a couple of lenses, a Konica body and two lenses, one Oly RF and my Chamonix 45. All the rest of the analog gear will be sold. I have too much of it, and a bit of spare cash to go toward the Fuji purchase will be welcome.

Cheers!

Earl
__________________
My Gallery Flickr
Fine grain is a bourgeois concept

Happiness is APX100 and Rodinal 1:100

A bunch o cameras. Does it really matter?
And NOW ... Fuji X-Pro1 w/ 18-55, 18/2 & adapted Zuikos and Hexanons
http://zuikoholic.tumblr.com
https://www.instagram.com/e.r.dunbar/
http://weedram.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-23-2015   #2
Frontman
Registered User
 
Frontman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: 東京日本
Posts: 1,684
I have been using the X100T for several month now, and had used and X-Pro with the 23mm lens before. I sold my X-Pro system as I find the X100T to suit me better. I didn't find the extra speed to be of any real advantage, though both lenses performed well. I use the X100T primarily to take family photos, and it is probably the best camera I have ever used for this purpose.

If you are going to be using only a single lens, the X100T is probably the best choice you could make. I love mine.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-23-2015   #3
splitimageview
Registered User
 
splitimageview is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,238
As this is presented, I'd go 23/2. There is no 'wrong' answer, but I really like the handling of the camera and the rendering of the lens, and the size, compared to a 23/1.4 setup.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-23-2015   #4
GaryLH
Registered User
 
GaryLH's Avatar
 
GaryLH is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,180
23f1.4 permanently on an x body or the 23f2 of the x100t. Unless u need the one stop better speed or eventually buy other lenses, I would go w/ the x100t... Plus silent leaf shutter... Only the electronic shutter of the xt series is quieter (though w/ potential jello issues).

Personally, I hate changing lenses in the field.. There is something to be said about having the x100t's 35fov and an x camera body w/ a different focal length.

Gary
__________________
Panasonic LX100, Sigma Foveon, Fuji X and Panasonic CM1
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-23-2015   #5
trisberg
Registered User
 
trisberg's Avatar
 
trisberg is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 60
Another vote for the X100T, just love this little camera. As the icing on the cake consider getting the Instax share printer for give aways.

-Thomas
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-23-2015   #6
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
 
Trius's Avatar
 
Trius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Posts: 8,257
Talking

PEOPLE!!!! - You are awesome! This was my gut feeling, I guess I just needed a bit of reinforcement, or convincing contraindication. (Don't you just LOVE six-syllable words?)

I'm not precluding an X-mount interchangeable in the future, but I will order an X100T from Popflash soon. Thanks all!

__________________
My Gallery Flickr
Fine grain is a bourgeois concept

Happiness is APX100 and Rodinal 1:100

A bunch o cameras. Does it really matter?
And NOW ... Fuji X-Pro1 w/ 18-55, 18/2 & adapted Zuikos and Hexanons
http://zuikoholic.tumblr.com
https://www.instagram.com/e.r.dunbar/
http://weedram.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-23-2015   #7
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 5,106
The x100's 23mm is like a classic lens. It has it's own little aberrations unique to it, and generally everyone that uses it loves it. The x100 itself is a beautiful camera to use. The 23mm f1.4 is much more like a canon/nikon 35mm f1.4 in use - more 'perfect' in character. Personally I think it's a better lens than either the canon or nikon equivalents, and the clutch manual focus mechanism is just sublime (much nicer than the olympus clutch MF mechanism which almost always has lateral slop in the actual movement).

Honestly, as I'm a 35mm guy, I'd have both. The x100 is just so good at what it does. However, get the 23mm f1.4 if you want 35 you can shoot wide open at f1.4 all day reliably.
__________________
NO PRAISE
@gavinlagrange
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-24-2015   #8
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,362
I have used both lenses.

The 23/1.4 is superior optically.

The 23/2 comes with a camera.

As others mentioned the 23/2 appears much smaller (and it is smaller) because most of the the lens body is recessed into the camera. The 23/1.4 is heavier and is almost too bulky for the X-Pro1. It's much easier to carry the X-Pro1 in a small bag with the 27/2.8

The reason I prefer the 23/1.4 is because the 23/2 will often render odd, asymmetrical flare around bright, point source lights. These artifacts are most common at night. In my experience they are highly dependent on the light angle and independent of aperture.

The AF technology in the 24/1.4 is quick and reliable. Of course the X100S/T AF is quick as well.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-24-2015   #9
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
 
Trius's Avatar
 
Trius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Posts: 8,257
Willie - thanks. I've given some thought to the 27/2.8 on the X-Pro1 as well. I may have to go to a shop that carries the line and handle the various combos. Sadly, in Rochester that's NO SHOP. Hamilton/Burlington or Toronto might be closest unless someone in Buffalo has Fuji X in stock. I doubt that.

It sounds like the flare issue might be hard to control unless one is very careful. I'll have to look for some images that exhibit that and see how distracting/distasteful it is.

Gavin - good observations, I appreciate that. Having both would be great, but at the moment it's not in the budget.
__________________
My Gallery Flickr
Fine grain is a bourgeois concept

Happiness is APX100 and Rodinal 1:100

A bunch o cameras. Does it really matter?
And NOW ... Fuji X-Pro1 w/ 18-55, 18/2 & adapted Zuikos and Hexanons
http://zuikoholic.tumblr.com
https://www.instagram.com/e.r.dunbar/
http://weedram.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2015   #10
F6Roger
Registered User
 
F6Roger's Avatar
 
F6Roger is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Crawley, West Sussex, UK
Age: 73
Posts: 85
As said, there is no 'wrong' answer. For me it would be the 23/1.4, a lovely lens. In fact I'm getting a second X-Pro1 body so's I can have a permanent X-Pro1 - 23/1.4 and X-Pro1 - 56/1.2 pairing, I don't like changing lenses in the field. I hope the X100T works out for you, but don't forget that the X-Pro1 body is getting cheaper by the month (at least here in the UK). Enjoy
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2015   #11
squirrel$$$bandit
Registered User
 
squirrel$$$bandit is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,252
Hey Earl, welcome back! I recently returned too. I haven't used the 1.4 and can't comment on the difference between the two, but I think you'll love the X100T. It's a great digicam for the film fan, fun to use and produces amazing pictures.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2015   #12
narsuitus
Registered User
 
narsuitus's Avatar
 
narsuitus is offline
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trius View Post
As a loyal Olympus/OM and Oly RF user for decades, I naturally have been inclined to put Olympus and m4/3 at the top of my list, but I just can't do it. Fuji got the camera controls right, and the size and weight seem to hit a sweet spot.
This year, I selected a Fuji X body with a 23mm f/1.4 lens to replaced my Olympus micro 4/3. I have been extremely happy with the performance of the 23mm; even wide open.

Since I needed the light gathering of the f/1.4 verses the f/2 on the X100T and the interchangeable lenses verses a fixed lens, I never considered the X100T. Therefore, I cannot tell you how the 23 f/1.4 compares to the 23 f/2 because I never used the X100T.



Candid Wedding Cameras by Narsuitus, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2015   #13
FrankS
Registered User
 
FrankS's Avatar
 
FrankS is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada, eh.
Age: 62
Posts: 19,389
Welcome back Earl! If you're coming to the Toronto meet on Nov.14, and I hope you are, you'll be able to handle some of the gear you're interested in.
__________________
my little website: http://frankfoto.jimdo.com/

photography makes me happy
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2015   #14
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
 
Trius's Avatar
 
Trius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Posts: 8,257
Frank, I will be there with bells on! I'm bringing an M3 with DR Summicron as well.
__________________
My Gallery Flickr
Fine grain is a bourgeois concept

Happiness is APX100 and Rodinal 1:100

A bunch o cameras. Does it really matter?
And NOW ... Fuji X-Pro1 w/ 18-55, 18/2 & adapted Zuikos and Hexanons
http://zuikoholic.tumblr.com
https://www.instagram.com/e.r.dunbar/
http://weedram.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-27-2015   #15
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trius View Post
It sounds like the flare issue might be hard to control unless one is very careful. I'll have to look for some images that exhibit that and see how distracting/distasteful it is.
The thing is it is impossible to control. In my experience it is extremely dependent on the angle of light. The flare is highly localized and is often asymmetrical. I have never seen this artifact in daylight.

I am seriously considering selling one of my X-T1 (or X-Pro1) bodies and the 27/2.8 (or 35/1.4) lens and picking up a X100T. So the this bright point-source flare is not a show stopper for me.

Here are some examples.

Fairmount Park Race Track 3292 by william hutton, on Flickr

The Boulevard, St Louis 0047 by william hutton, on Flickr
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2015   #16
MaxElmar
Registered User
 
MaxElmar's Avatar
 
MaxElmar is offline
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 589
Willie - thank you for posting examples - very helpful. Seeing the flares, I can see where they might really bother some. But for others they may be a "feature" not a "bug." I'm leaning towards the latter.

Regards,
__________________
Chris L.

Still Photographically Uncool
https://www.flickr.com/photos/xenotar/


  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2015   #17
splitimageview
Registered User
 
splitimageview is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,238
Was there a filter on the lens for these shots?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2015   #18
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
 
Trius's Avatar
 
Trius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Posts: 8,257
Those are really strange flares. I don't do a lot of work at night or under those conditions, but I can imagine not being pleased with that if the shot was once-in-a-lifetime or otherwise singular. *scratches head*
__________________
My Gallery Flickr
Fine grain is a bourgeois concept

Happiness is APX100 and Rodinal 1:100

A bunch o cameras. Does it really matter?
And NOW ... Fuji X-Pro1 w/ 18-55, 18/2 & adapted Zuikos and Hexanons
http://zuikoholic.tumblr.com
https://www.instagram.com/e.r.dunbar/
http://weedram.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-29-2015   #19
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by splitimageview View Post
Was there a filter on the lens for these shots?
No filter (I don't even own a filter for that lens) and I did have the OEM Fujifilm lens hood attached.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-29-2015   #20
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trius View Post
Those are really strange flares. I don't do a lot of work at night or under those conditions, but I can imagine not being pleased with that if the shot was once-in-a-lifetime or otherwise singular. *scratches head*
They are very strange. Not every bright light source in the images has them.

I speculate they are cause by a internal reflections due to a combination of two things.

First, the lens rear element is extremely close to the sensor. The X100 Fujinon is much longer than one would think as most of it is recessed into the camera.

Second, the color-filter array micro lenses differ as one moves from the center of the frame to the edges. This design minimizes vignetting and color shifts caused by the short lens-to-sensor distance.

They are always present. But only become apparent in scenes with extreme dynamic range due to strong over exposure of the point-source lights. Otherwise (another speculation) they are weaker than the noise and essentially are below the ADC threshold. Anyway, I have never seen them except in situations similar to the examples I posted.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-29-2015   #21
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
 
Trius's Avatar
 
Trius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Posts: 8,257
Willy: Have you or anyone queried Fuji about this?
__________________
My Gallery Flickr
Fine grain is a bourgeois concept

Happiness is APX100 and Rodinal 1:100

A bunch o cameras. Does it really matter?
And NOW ... Fuji X-Pro1 w/ 18-55, 18/2 & adapted Zuikos and Hexanons
http://zuikoholic.tumblr.com
https://www.instagram.com/e.r.dunbar/
http://weedram.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-30-2015   #22
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,362
Nope. They all did it.

But I am considering picking up a X100T (sold my first X100 to fund a lens for the XT-1 bodies) and your response peaked my curiosity.

Wading through Flickr results filtered for X100 I saw flare results similar to mine.

To my surprise, I could not find a single example of these asymmetrical artifacts in Flickr photos filtered for the X100T. Any issues with overexposed point source lights rendered as they do with every other digital camera I've owned.

So I'm going sell the X-Pro1 and pick up a X100T.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-30-2015   #23
FrankS
Registered User
 
FrankS's Avatar
 
FrankS is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada, eh.
Age: 62
Posts: 19,389
The X100T is a good solution for those who are okay with 35mm equivalent and don't want the pressure of an interchangeable lens camera, like the Rolleiflex compared to a hasselblad.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-30-2015   #24
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
 
Trius's Avatar
 
Trius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Posts: 8,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
Nope. They all did it. But I am considering picking up a X100T (sold my first X100 to fund a lens for the XT-1 bodies) and your response peaked my curiosity. Wading through Flickr results filtered for X100 I saw flare results similar to mine. To my surprise, I could not find a single example of these asymmetrical artifacts in Flickr photos filtered for the X100T. Any issues with overexposed point source lights rendered as they do with every other digital camera I've owned. So I'm going sell the X-Pro1 and pick up a X100T.
This X100T night shot posted on Twitter is simply great.

https://twitter.com/bnwaneampeh/stat...64753726271488
__________________
My Gallery Flickr
Fine grain is a bourgeois concept

Happiness is APX100 and Rodinal 1:100

A bunch o cameras. Does it really matter?
And NOW ... Fuji X-Pro1 w/ 18-55, 18/2 & adapted Zuikos and Hexanons
http://zuikoholic.tumblr.com
https://www.instagram.com/e.r.dunbar/
http://weedram.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-30-2015   #25
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
 
Trius's Avatar
 
Trius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Posts: 8,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankS View Post
The X100T is a good solution for those who are okay with 35mm equivalent and don't want the pressure of an interchangeable lens camera, like the Rolleiflex compared to a hasselblad.
That's one thing that attracts me. Helps to keep me focused. Along with the OVF.
__________________
My Gallery Flickr
Fine grain is a bourgeois concept

Happiness is APX100 and Rodinal 1:100

A bunch o cameras. Does it really matter?
And NOW ... Fuji X-Pro1 w/ 18-55, 18/2 & adapted Zuikos and Hexanons
http://zuikoholic.tumblr.com
https://www.instagram.com/e.r.dunbar/
http://weedram.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-31-2015   #26
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,362
So yesterday Fujifilm announced a sale from Nov 8 through Dec 26. The X100T will be available with a $200 instant discount (no rebate paperwork).

The only decision left is chrome or black.

When I used the original chrome X100 strangers and authority figures seemed unable to see the camera. I decided they thought it was just an old-fashion film camera and therefore harmless. This was good.

It is possible its size and thin lens profile was more responsible for the low-hassle factor than the retro chrome styling. And I have always preferred the look of black bodies. I suspect strangers take black-bodied cameras more seriously as practically all DSLRs have black bodies.

Ken Rockwell claims "chrome is the new black". Is he right?
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-31-2015   #27
back alley
IMAGES
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: true north strong & free
Posts: 49,219
modern 'chrome' looks cheap & plastic to me…black all the way!
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-31-2015   #28
FrankS
Registered User
 
FrankS's Avatar
 
FrankS is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada, eh.
Age: 62
Posts: 19,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post

The only decision left is chrome or black.

When I used the original chrome X100 strangers and authority figures seemed unable to see the camera. I decided they thought it was just an old-fashion film camera and therefore harmless. This was good.

It is possible its size and thin lens profile was more responsible for the low-hassle factor than the retro chrome styling. And I have always preferred the look of black bodies. I suspect strangers take black-bodied cameras more seriously as practically all DSLRs have black bodies.

?
I think you're right. Chrome is more retro and less serious than black. If this is important to your photography then Chrome.

Like Joe, I like the look of black better.
__________________
my little website: http://frankfoto.jimdo.com/

photography makes me happy
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-31-2015   #29
splitimageview
Registered User
 
splitimageview is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,238
Chrome or black?

Yes.

But did Fuji really announce a discount this far in advance?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-31-2015   #30
GaryLH
Registered User
 
GaryLH's Avatar
 
GaryLH is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,180
Prefer black myself..

Gary
__________________
Panasonic LX100, Sigma Foveon, Fuji X and Panasonic CM1
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-31-2015   #31
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,783
chrome! the stupid bright white built-in flash really stands out on the black version. plus, the speckled finish doesn't do it for me, especially on a camera body where the textured leatherette covering goes all the way across. on a "classic looking" camera, it really should be a smooth paint job.

if most of the body was bare with leatherette confined to the grip, sort of like a 1990s camera, it would look ok. the sleeker body detailing of the x100t is sort of moving in that direction, but it's caught up with the whole band of leatherette thing.
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-31-2015   #32
splitimageview
Registered User
 
splitimageview is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,238
Speckled paint finish? The black paint isn't 'speckled' unless I'm not following what you wrote
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-31-2015   #33
gilpen123
Gil
 
gilpen123's Avatar
 
gilpen123 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Manila, Philippines
Posts: 2,604
Please give me the link of this promo sale....also interested with the X100T
thanks

Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
So yesterday Fujifilm announced a sale from Nov 8 through Dec 26. The X100T will be available with a $200 instant discount (no rebate paperwork).

The only decision left is chrome or black.

When I used the original chrome X100 strangers and authority figures seemed unable to see the camera. I decided they thought it was just an old-fashion film camera and therefore harmless. This was good.

It is possible its size and thin lens profile was more responsible for the low-hassle factor than the retro chrome styling. And I have always preferred the look of black bodies. I suspect strangers take black-bodied cameras more seriously as practically all DSLRs have black bodies.

Ken Rockwell claims "chrome is the new black". Is he right?
__________________
Gil

"Imagination is more important than knowledge"
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-31-2015   #34
Pablito
coco frío
 
Pablito's Avatar
 
Pablito is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Salsipuedes
Posts: 3,479
For what it's worth, I find the flare of the x100_ lens impossible to control and far worse than any example posted above. It has to do with bright light sources just outside the frame. You should google this problem and read about it on this and other forums. It prevents me from using the camera as I originally intended because huge patches of smoky flare can ruin photos. The camera went to Fuji, they replaced the lens, no change. Tried all the different hood styles available. Not using a filter. I sill use the camera but have to be extremely mindful of any situation that involves shooting into the light, or with bright light just outside the frame. The camera is fine but not if you need a totally relible tool. I have not had a problem like this with any pro equipment I have owned from Nikon, Leica, etc in the last 40 years. The XT1 with the 23mm 1.4 is extremely well behaved and does not exhibit any of these eccentricities.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-01-2015   #35
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
 
Trius's Avatar
 
Trius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Posts: 8,257
I posted on the 27 vs 35 thread that I went a different direction, and I even surprised myself. I bought an XPro-1 w/18-55 on evil-bay. With the X200 coming and the prices of XPro1 bodies being so good, I decided to dive in with a interchangeable mount system. From what I understand firmware updates have kept the XPro pretty "fresh", and I'll also be using manual focus with adapters and legacy primes.

An X100 or X200 (?) may be in my future, but right now spending about $500USD less was a big consideration for me.
__________________
My Gallery Flickr
Fine grain is a bourgeois concept

Happiness is APX100 and Rodinal 1:100

A bunch o cameras. Does it really matter?
And NOW ... Fuji X-Pro1 w/ 18-55, 18/2 & adapted Zuikos and Hexanons
http://zuikoholic.tumblr.com
https://www.instagram.com/e.r.dunbar/
http://weedram.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-01-2015   #36
FrankS
Registered User
 
FrankS's Avatar
 
FrankS is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada, eh.
Age: 62
Posts: 19,389
All right, Earl!
__________________
my little website: http://frankfoto.jimdo.com/

photography makes me happy
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-01-2015   #37
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,362
Look here.

I will order Monday from RFF sponsor Popflash. Friday I spoke with Alex at Popflash who verbally confirmed this is a Fujifilm USA year-end special.

I hope this is enough information to establish I'm not hallucinating,
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-01-2015   #38
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by gilpen123 View Post
Please give me the link of this promo sale....also interested with the X100T
thanks
But Chrome or black?
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-01-2015   #39
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankS View Post
I think you're right. Chrome is more retro and less serious than black. If this is important to your photography then Chrome.

Like Joe, I like the look of black better.
The less serious look is beneficial so I'm leaning this way. I will use the camera in public to photograph strangers and on private property (shopping venues, bars, restaurants, etc) where the owners could tell me to stop.

I have to decide tomorrow.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-01-2015   #40
FrankS
Registered User
 
FrankS's Avatar
 
FrankS is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada, eh.
Age: 62
Posts: 19,389
It sounds like your photography requires the acceptance of strangers, so the less intimidating the camera, the better. The photographers behaviour/demeanour is probably more important, but that can't be selected during a camera purchase like black or Chrome.

Edit: I don't like the way that auto-correct capitalizes Chrome!
__________________
my little website: http://frankfoto.jimdo.com/

photography makes me happy
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:33.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.