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>

<p>First outing with Fuji X-30. Coney Island sure has changed since I was a kid.</p><div></div>

<p>Sold off the last of my Nikon kit (including a D300) two days ago and don't plan on looking back.<br> I really haven't had any major focusing issues with my Fuji X-E1 (or X-30 for that matter). I generally shoot using the smallest setting possible on the AF grid.</p>

<p>Darned thing is still too big. I'll get the hang of this one of these days.</p>

<p>That 55-200 Fuji zoom with the 16mm tube is becoming one of my favorite "macro" lenses.<br> Too big the first time. Will try again.</p><div></div>

<p>That 55-200 Fuji zoom with the 16mm tube is becoming one of my favorite "macro" lenses.</p>

<p>Hi, Mukul,<br> Beautiful pug. Reminds me so much of one that I had. She would have been 12 years old today. Doesn't seem as though Delhi is the ideal climate for pugs, but yours seems to be doing just fine.<br> You've really caught the moment of him (?) dealing with the heat.</p>

<p>I've been seeing more and more people switching to Fujifilm, and other mirrorless systems. Last week I was selling off some Nikon gear at Adorama and the man ahead of me was telling me that he is moving from Canon (5D MkII) to Sony. Even though he's going from FF to FF, I'm finding that some of the current APS-C sensors are giving many FF sensors a run for their money. Not that they're better, but pretty darned close.<br> I'm in the process of selling off more and more Nikon gear and purchasing what I'll need to build up my Fuji system. Right now, the only Fuji body I have is an X-E1 which I find much better (noisewise) than my Nikon D300 at ISOs over 400. Yeah, older technology vs newer technology isn't a fair comparison, but I didn't expect the Fuji sensor to be THAT much better.<br> What's holding me back from making a complete changeover is that Fuji's flash "system" isn't in the same league as that from Nikon. At my age, I sure like the lighter weight and size of the mirrorless systems.</p>

<p>I have a Fuji X-E1 and many old Nikkors. After trying 2 Nikon/Fuji adaptors at B&H, I decided against using one as it complicates what should be simple and adds weight (not much) to the system I bought into to lighten my load. I know that a lot of people do this with excellent results, but it just doesn't work for me. Most of my Nikkors are heading to KEH.<br> Not that I shoot much video (or care to), but for me, using a high-quality zoom from the camera manufacturer would make the most sense. I'm not very familiar with the Panasonic system, but I'm sure that PanaLeica have a zoom available that will provide great results. Anyway, I've tried shooting video with several Fujifilm bodies with less than stellar results...even using the 18-55 which is excellent for stills.</p>

<p>"Bag collecting" has been part of my life for far too many years. Like many of us, my closet is full of the next great bag. Most of them now hold everything but photo gear.<br> For my Fujifilm X-E1, I decided to make use of three bags that I already owned. A Domke F-803, Domke F5XB and Lowepro Event Messenger 150 (after I removed that damned velcro). None are perfect and none ever will be.<br> Over the years, I've come to prefer Domke and Lowepro as I think you get a lot of bag for the money with these brands. In particular, the Domke F5XB has been my favorite small bag for many years. Used it when I shot with Leica M's. It held a body with lens, two additional lenses as well as quite a bit of film. Works just as well with my X-E1 but limits me to just one additional lens instead of two.</p>

<p>Gerry,<br /> That a very creative setup and not at all expensive to put together.<br /> When I was still shooting film, I used to duplicate slides with a very similar setup using a Nikon bellows. The fly in the ointment was having to use electronic flash as my light source in order to obtain the correct color balance. I would have "killed" for something like an LED lightsource back in the day.<br /> I scanned all of my slides/negs quite a few year ago using a Nikon scanner with ICE which eliminated the need to "remove" dust in PS as even cleaning the neg/slide well didn't always remove every last speck.<br /> To eliminate vibration and stabilize the whole setup, you may want to run a countersunk bolt through the board up into the RRS clamp. Clamping (C-clamps, spring clamps) the board to the table would also help. No clamps? Try a few heavy cans of food on the board. No mirror to lock up, but if you're not already using the self timer or a remote shutter release, that would also add to steadiness.<br /> Almost makes we want to go out and shoot some film. I sold the scanner a few years ago (nothing left to scan) but that LED lightsource has me thinking about some possibilities.</p>