Rich B NYC

Was using the 60mm earlier today and, as usual, had to constantly check the VF to be sure what aperture I was using. The aperture rings on none of my other Fuji lenses is nearly this loose. Hopefully the rumored 80mm macro will solve this problem.

If you can wait a little longer, the Fuji 80mm macro is supposedly due out within a few months. I'm using the 60mm (mostly using MF) and it's a darned good lens. My biggest gripe is that it's not long enough. Frankly, if Fuji pulls another 120mm teaser, I'm going to go with a used 105mm Nikkor and be done with it once and for all.

<p>Why not? The X-Pro 1 always struck me as being a shot across the Leica's bow. Not something I'd be interested in, but those who are into B&W would have to be crazy not to check it out if it's for real and a heck of a lot less expensive than the Leica offering.</p>

<p>Louis,<br> That is one interesting setup you've got there. I haven't worked with anything like that and I feel my wallet getting thinner already. I'd also be interested in knowing how you mounted the Tessar to the bellows.<br> The photo shows a beautiful softness that goes way beyond simple flair. Kind of reminds me of some old Leitz uncoated lenses from way back when.</p>

<p>A day late. X-E1 with 55-200</p><div></div>

<p>Not sure what you mean. As far as I know, the Silkypix converter(s) that Fuji provides does not have a dedicated folder for downloading files of any type.<br> I download mine (also RAW+jpeg) to a folder that I've set up in windows and access them via Silkypix...File/open folder. Once I have them opened as thumbnails in Silkypix, I do a batch renumbering to conform to my own filing system.</p>

<p><img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00d/00dV2g-558525784.jpg" alt="" width="447" height="700" hspace="5" vspace="10" data-original="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00d/00dV2g-558525784.jpg" /><br> I recently posted this (not very special) photo elsewhere on Photo.net and mentioned that the building in the background was designed by Frank Ghery and that I liked his style of architecture.<br> Another poster responded that he felt that better structures could be designed by a child and that he preferred more practical structures.<br> OK. We can all agree that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that our tastes differ.<br> Yet, I found it interesting that someone who is interested in photography, which is certainly an art, would be more concerned with practicality than with creativity and demean the work of someone like Ghery which many consider to be at the highest level of architectural design.<br> Given today's gear, it's pretty easy to take a technically perfect picture of a rose for strictly documentary purposes, if one wants to photograph a rose simply to show what a rose looks like. Nothing wrong with that as far as I'm concerned. It's certainly practical.<br> With no architectural training at all, I can draw a picture of a box with windows and call it a building. No, I don't pretend to know the technical construction details needed to keep that building from falling apart, but the design would be practical. There sure are enough buildings like that around to prove the point.<br> However, I don't believe that I (or many of us) have the skill to design buildings that would in any way be critically acclaimed by the architectural community. I don't believe that my grandchildren have that skill (at least not yet) either.<br> The quality of my photo wasn't criticized and I'm not taking the comment personally as that didn't seem to be the other poster's intent. I didn't take the photo to be creative/artistic, but just because I liked the building and wanted to share it with those unfamiliar with Ghery's work. Yet that comment begs the question as to whether art (and who can argue that architecture is not an art at Ghery's level) should be practical or creative (or both, for that matter)<br> I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts as to practicality vs creativity in art, be it photographic or architectural.</p>

<p>Karim....to each his own. New York is so full of boxes with windows that I find this type of architecture a refreshing change.</p>

<p>David, Like your use of light, especially on the 2:25 shot.</p>

<p>Another one shot from High Line Park. That's the IAC building in the background, which was designed by Frank Ghery. He's designed some of the most interesting structures I've ever seen. If you're unfamiliar with his work, a quick Google will give you some idea of what he's all about.</p><div></div>

<p>As a NYC native I'm almost ashamed to admit it, but this was my first visit to High Line Park.</p><div></div>

<p>No time to post yesterday. Far too many sights like this in NYC these days.</p><div></div>

<p>Check out the Tenba DNA 8. Just got one and it easily holds my X-E1 with 18-55. It can holds 2 more lenses and a small flash if you ever want to go that way, but it's still small enough not to be a drag to drag around.<br> Another option is the Domke F5XB. Used one when I was shooting with Leica M's and it can be used as a shoulder bag or attached to your belt. Still have it after nearly 15 years and, like all Domke bags, it really held up well.</p>

<p>Been doing quite a bit of street shooting with the X-30. Not quite in the same class as the X-E1 when it comes to image quality, but it's no slouch.</p><div></div>

<p>One more</p><div></div>