John Bean (UK)

Indeed. Many years ago in another life I often photograhed sample slices of various materials very close up - maybe 2:1 or so - using a monorail 5x4 camera, for archival reference purposes. No...

Strange remark given that lots of macro work exists using all formats you can imagine and then some. Not all macros require great dof (flat subjects like coins, say) and not all subjects move.

So... WW1/2 actually started just because someone got a bit grumpy.

I learn something new every day ;-)

High Street, presumably :-)

At that price they could have the decency to use brass rather than "brass effect" for the body. "Brass look" is typical of ultra-cheap junk products found in pound shops.

"Hate to admit it, but I never heard of 'em "

Don't feel bad - I'm sure there are lots of US companies that I've never heard of ;-)

You read my mind. I loved every image, but towards the end thought the umbrella theme was getting a bit overused.

"New" doesn't always imply "best".

Clones? Love auto-correct... not ;-)

It does not. It works only on Panasonic bodies.

Well if there is a joke in ther somewhere I'm open to explanation.

On second thoughts belay that - no worthwhile joke needs explanation any mre than a worthwhile image does.

I've always found them to be rather good. I've used both the 12/2 and 8mm fisheye on Fuji X, and used other Samyang lenses on micro 4/3. They are all well made and optically excellent.

I've never used a X100F but I have used X100 and X100T and currently use a X-T20 having previously used a X-T2 and X-T10, so I have some experience of various generations of Fuji sensor. X-trans II...

My 23/2 is absolutely fine, even wide open, but I've read many opinions like yours all across the web. Maybe there was a bad batch - QA problem? Who knows.

My 18/2 is also very decent, certainly...

Inded. Or my X-A2 kit bought new for £325, sold kit zoom fot £125, added 27/2.8 new from Japan for £205. Total for a brand new camera and lens: £405. That said the lens is more often on my X-T10...

Like almost every cine and TV camera used before good zoom lenses were available. Never caught on with still cameras, although you could buy things to mount spare lenses to the bottom of the camera...

Too true. I used Olympus for years and appreciated the superb lenses and stellar service from Olympus Europe. But when my E-M5 was upgraded - FOC - to a E-M5 mk II after a repair fiasco I fell out...

I can't think of a single reason to want to shoot video on any MF camera, except perhaps in the unlikely scenario that it's the only camera you own.

Ahem... "affordable Leica" isn't a phrase I often see ;-)

Probably nothing was lost. Adobe uses lossless compression by default, the original probably has no compression at all.