Herr_Synnberg

Only when using non-retrofocus lenses. You can read detailed tests on luminous-landscape .

Really? There’s a Kipon M mount adapter for the NEX system available RIGHT NOW and so is the Voigtlander 15mm Heliar.

…so is an F mount adapter and the Rokinon 14 f2.8, available for 300 odd bucks brand new.
… and the Zeiss 15mm
…and the Nikon 14 22.8

How many more lenses do you need?

Stop living under a rock, the NEX system is one of the most supported by third party adapter makers.

…and you need to start reading from the original post itself, which is a claim that there’s no fast 18mm for the Nikon mount. That claim has been disprove and the lens is just fine for some of us who despise rangefinders. Ever tried to use a grad ND or a polarizer on a Leica? Try it an let me know how it goes.

What he’s saying is that instead of swapping lenses a lot, just move around and recompose.

I’d recommend that you develop a style of shooting first. Swapping lenses 15 times in one shooting session is a sign of indecisiveness, more often than not. Once you develop a style, you’ll see that you’re drawn to a handful of focal lengths and nothing in between interests you. Some days, I go out to shoot with a certain Field of View in my mind and I shoot things that satisfy that criteria. This means I’m more than happy with a single lens on that particular day.

There are genuine reasons for carrying multiple lenses, but if you don’t have a style of your own, you’re better off sticking to a single focal length for a while.

I use a card reader. Way faster.

Who cares if they don’t make it anymore? You can buy it any day of the week from KEH. I’ve been shooting for a long time now and almost always buy my lenses used. Nothing wrong with that.The OP said Nikon doesn’t have a fast 18 and I just proved that they do.

Also, it’s bigger and heavier because it’s a full frame lens. Some of us like full frame. At 700 odd bucks, it’s hardly what I call expensive, especially when compared to the slower Zeiss.

Lastly, DoF markers exist for those of us who shoot hyperfocal. If you’re familiar with the technique, you’ll understand that the OVF/ EVF isn’t quite the match, especially for landscaping.

It’s meant for a completely different market segment. The point of bringing that lens up was to show that a proper DSLR kit can be put together for far less than the Fuji kit. Yes, the lens may only be 80% as good, but it is also way, way cheaper. Plus, the body has much superior AF, controls, upgradability etc. That the Fuji can’t match at this point of time.

When you look at it as a system, the X-Pro-1 is weak, mostly because of the price point. If I really wanted a mirrorless, I’ll get the excellent NEX-7, adaptors and all the fast manual primes that I wanted for less than the price of the Fuji body.

I’ve shot with a 1.4 for years and yes, the difference between 1.4 and 1.8 is not all that big. Especially at a wider focal length.

I’ve also shot hundreds of portraits, some even published, wide open on 1.2, 1.4 and 1.8 lenses from a humble D70s to a 5D Mk II and if you know how to use a phase detect focus system properly (tip: Don’t focus-recompose if you can help it) and I’ve managed to get the focus dead on on all of them. I’m yet to see a contrast detect focus mechanism that can come close to phase detect, this Fuji included.

That said, my response was to the post above that compared a kit lens to this 35 1.4. That’s a useless comparison as someone can get an entry level DSLR and a 351.8 for far lesser than the Fuji kit, get infinitely better AF, a much more comprehensive system to upgrade to etc. The Fuji is a nice camera, but it’s way overpriced for what it is and that’s a fact.

This is a really nice shot.

Thanks!

Thanks!

Thank you.

There’s no company in the world that can re-package lenses in “Light weight housings”, primarily because most of the heft of fast lenses comes from the actual glass inside. Even for metal body lenses. For example, one needs a LOT more glass for a 1.4 lens as opposed to a 1.8 at any given focal length.

Perhaps, if you can give an idea of which system you prefer and which focal lengths you normally shoot at, we can offer suggestions.

Lastly, if you don’t like camera bags, then you’re outta luck. Dedicated camera backpacks, at least the good ones are designed to transfer the load to your lower back rather than the shoulders, therefore they are more comfortable over long durations, even with a substantial amount of gear inside. Your bespoke luggage may look cool and dashing, but they have no place ins serious photography.

I highly doubt if Galen Rowell ever climbed mountains with a bespoke sling bag from Tanner Krolle.

There’s a 35 f1.8 DX from Nikon that’s sold for a fraction of the price that the Fuji 1.4 is going for. Are you not aware of that?

That’s beautiful. I get the feeling that I’ve been to this place. Where is this?

That’s a rather interesting shot, but the highlights have unfortunately been blown.

This is an oldie from my archives

Nikon D80
100mm
f4
1/4000s
ISO 800

It’s nice, but a dedicated macro lens would have taken it to another level. As it is now, I’d probably crop a bit tighter.

I like the treatment of this. Some people may think the vignetting is excessive, but it’s perfect for me. Also, in most cases, framing a subject in the center is bad, but in this one, the angle of the flagpole and the distribution of the negative space works.

Thanks very much!

Too grainy!

lol, I kid. Love the Tri-X and good capture.

Yeah, +1 for that. There are Leicas and then there are Leicas. The Fuji may only be a look-a-Leica, but it’s miles better than the Panny the red dot is hawking these days.

Thank you. I didn’t do too much noise reduction, only so much that the “Grain” feel is preserved.

Thanks, haha. The girlfriend poses readily when a camera’s around, so I save on renting a model. :p

Nice! It’s got a large format look to it, which I appreciate.
I’d have processed the colors a bit differently, but that’s just a personal preference.

This image can fit well into a series of images covering the scene, other images focusing on the subject, of course.

You’re correct, a polarizer would have helped cut the glare, but unfortunately, it’ll also cut down about a stop of light. As I was shooting with available light, that’d have proved to be less than ideal.

Canon 500D
50 f1.8, wide open
ISO 3200
1/40 s

Very interesting composition, would possibly look better as high contrast black ’n white.