The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

Well, that was a good use of an evening. I had a large spot of dust (~1mm) dead centre on the inside of the rear element of the 56mm. Looks like it's something that's happened to a few lenses based on some googling of the problem. Thought about sending it in for repair, but as it's out of warranty, reckoned undoing a few screws wouldn't hurt! Turns out the final element in the 56 is easy to remove as it's bonded to its housing. All cleaned up nicely with just the blower and an anti-static brush. Lens is as sharp as ever and no dust bunnies any more!

Element was interesting - looked like a very thin (~1mm), very long (~1000mm) focal length meniscus lens. Wonder if it's primarily aberration correction for low f-numbers... Definitely not something I'd seen in similar lenses, though it did remind me of the filters that are a required part of the optical path in some reflective lenses.
 
Anyone else having problems connecting to the Fuji store. Its been down since yesterday. I wonder if there getting ready for these up and coming deals etc?
 
Dave70D said:
Just a fun moon.


Moon by David Ore, on Flickr
Click to expand...


That's a nice Fujigraph Sir, showing some good detail and I'm sure it would stand pulling up to fill the frame out a bit more.(y)

"You sure as hell have been producing some good shots recently, keep up the good work":D

George.
 
Last edited:
ChrisH said:
@mickledore

Does that mean if I go to Madame Tussauds all my pictures wont like waxworks.
Click to expand...
Ah @ChrisH The Kraken wakes.
I've corrected that quote for you.
We missed you on Saturday. Honest we did.
I've never seen waxy skin, even inside Madame Tussauds!
I only ever use one model, who has just about the most perfect complexion.
FUJI1103.jpg
 
Further to my near accident using Optech Mini QD Loops direct to the camera eyelet on my X-E2.
Just inspected the same connectors on my X-T1 and looks like that would have failed in near enough the same place.

Obviously not up to the job and must emphasise use some kind of metal split ring albeit circular or triangular.
Personally lost faith completely in these connectors and will bin the lot, even the new ones I have.

The failed one from the X-E2
Mini QD Loop.jpg

The soon to fail one from the X-T1
Mini QD1.jpg
 
tijuana taxi said:
Further to my near accident using Optech Mini QD Loops direct to the camera eyelet on my X-E2.
Just inspected the same connectors on my X-T1 and looks like that would have failed in near enough the same place.

Obviously not up to the job and must emphasise use some kind of metal split ring albeit circular or triangular.
Personally lost faith completely in these connectors and will bin the lot, even the new ones I have.
Click to expand...

I've been using them for 3+ years all with a circular or triangular split ring, no signs of any wear, but the camera eyelet does have sharper edges.

@mickledore thats a dangerous path.......
 
Mr Perceptive said:
I've been using them for 3+ years all with a circular or triangular split ring, no signs of any wear, but the camera eyelet does have sharper edges.
Click to expand...

Probably ok then used like that, but my confidence in them has gone and would be forever checking.
 
tijuana taxi said:
Further to my near accident using Optech Mini QD Loops direct to the camera eyelet on my X-E2.
Just inspected the same connectors on my X-T1 and looks like that would have failed in near enough the same place.

Obviously not up to the job and must emphasise use some kind of metal split ring albeit circular or triangular.
Personally lost faith completely in these connectors and will bin the lot, even the new ones I have.

The failed one from the X-E2
View attachment 112148

The soon to fail one from the X-T1
View attachment 112149
Click to expand...
Hmm, Rich. Doesn't look good.
Split rings are a must, of whatever shape.
 
Those eyelets are very small. Not a lot of room for the threads to move around which could lead to increased wear and tear.
You won't make that mistake again.
 
G.K.Jnr. said:
That's a nice Fujigraph Sir, showing some good detail and I'm sure it would stand pulling up to fill the frame out a bit more.(y)

"You sure as hell have been producing some good shots recently, keep up the good work":D

George.
Click to expand...

Thank you George for the nice words, if the sky is clear again tonight I might have another go :)
 
No Longer Available.

George.
 
Last edited:
yamahatdm900 said:
surely in real life viewing and printing you will never notice it?
Click to expand...
Oh yes you will. And you will DIE!

There is only one person who has been on this thread who claims to have had a problem with this.
He shot a bunch of trees 200 yards away on a windy day and complained that the leaves were not sharp when he blew everything up to 400%.
He sold his gear.
He never shuts up about it, and will no doubt soon be on here telling us that everyone is out of step except his goodself.
So much hot air written about so little.
 
I don't think I have ever viewed any of my images at 300% :confused: what is the point? I do regularly view mine at 100%, in Lightroom, and I don't experience this phenomenon. Some people are too obsessed with sharpness, and they push process way too much.
 
mickledore said:
Oh yes you will. And you will DIE!

There is only one person who has been on this thread who claims to have had a problem with this.
He shot a bunch of trees 200 yards away on a windy day and complained that the leaves were not sharp when he blew everything up to 400%.
He sold his gear.
He never shuts up about it, and will no doubt soon be on here telling us that everyone is out of step except his goodself.
So much hot air written about so little.
Click to expand...


Lol no wonder my pictures are useless then I only look at 50% normally :-)
 
yamahatdm900 said:
Just came across this blog post https://www.exploringexposure.com/blog/2017/1/20/sharpening-fujifilm-raw-files
I know I'm not an expert by any means on pp, he mentions the files look great at 100% but he has a lot of worms at 300% surely in real life viewing and printing you will never notice it?
Click to expand...

More like a can of worms, just crazy, why would you want to view at that magnification.

Always amazes me that people expect pin sharp detail miles away, it wouldn't be using your eyes so totally unrealistic

Just to preempt the usual words of wisdom, you could always get a Sony (no, I want to take photos not listen to music)
 
yamahatdm900 said:
Lol no wonder my pictures are useless then I only look at 50% normally :)
Click to expand...

Most people who view your images will only view at about 25% so they look even better :D tbh I only look at mine 100% to quick check I nailed focus - on eyes or the centre of a flower, that kind of thing.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
I don't think I have ever viewed any of my images at 300% :confused: what is the point? I do regularly view mine at 100%, in Lightroom, and I don't experience this phenomenon. Some people are too obsessed with sharpness, and they push process way too much.
Click to expand...

tijuana taxi said:
More like a can of worms, just crazy, why would you want to view at that magnification.

Always amazes me that people expect pin sharp detail miles away, it wouldn't be using your eyes so totally unrealistic

Just to preempt the usual words of wisdom, you could always get a Sony (no, I want to take photos not listen to music)
Click to expand...

But it must be the right thing to do its on the internet :-)

Cagey75 said:
Most people who view your images will only view at about 25% so they look even better :D tbh I only look at mine 100% to quick check I nailed focus - on eyes or the centre of a flower, that kind of thing.
Click to expand...

Lol at this rate I won't have to worry about focusing any more.
 
yamahatdm900 said:
Lol no wonder my pictures are useless then I only look at 50% normally :)
Click to expand...
According to (I think it was) Jeff Schewe, who I believe helped create LR, if you want to see the effects of sharpening accurately, you should view at 100%, because LR displays an approximation at anything lower than that, and you won't be able to see what's really going on.

I agree that viewing pictures at 300% is pretty pointless. A pixel is a pixel, after all. At 300% they're just bigger pixels!

I'll see whether I can find an example from my own files where you can see a difference between LR and XT at 100%
 
mickledore said:
Oh yes you will. And you will DIE!

There is only one person who has been on this thread who claims to have had a problem with this.
He shot a bunch of trees 200 yards away on a windy day and complained that the leaves were not sharp when he blew everything up to 400%.
He sold his gear.
He never shuts up about it, and will no doubt soon be on here telling us that everyone is out of step except his goodself.
So much hot air written about so little.
Click to expand...

I leave the poor souls too it, as I have never seen any of what the person says :D
 
dave.hallett said:
According to (I think it was) Jeff Schewe, who I believe helped create LR, if you want to see the effects of sharpening accurately, you should view at 100%, because LR displays an approximation at anything lower than that, and you won't be able to see what's really going on.

I agree that viewing pictures at 300% is pretty pointless. A pixel is a pixel, after all. At 300% they're just bigger pixels!

I'll see whether I can find an example from my own files where you can see a difference between LR and XT at 100%
Click to expand...


I do judge my sharpening at 100%, its the initial scan through to sort out the crap that I tend to view at 50%. I use to be a bit of a pixel peeper but trying to get away from the manta that sharpness is king.
Being thick now but whats XT?
 
Well I can see the worms, if I dig for them ;)
Seriously though they are there and not that hard to find, I'm just having to stop caring as much, and on the rare occasions I print out I can't see them
 
yamahatdm900 said:
I do judge my sharpening at 100%, its the initial scan through to sort out the crap that I tend to view at 50%. I use to be a bit of a pixel peeper but trying to get away from the manta that sharpness is king.
Being thick now but whats XT?
Click to expand...
Oh I see. Actually, I often judge my pictures almost in thumbnail view while doing an initial cull. If it doesn't look like much when it's small, detail won't save it (although being out of focus might well kill it!).

XT was me trying to save typing out X-Transformer. That'll teach me to be lazy. :-)
 
dave.hallett said:
Oh I see. Actually, I often judge my pictures almost in thumbnail view while doing an initial cull. If it doesn't look like much when it's small, detail won't save it (although being out of focus might well kill it!).

XT was me trying to save typing out X-Transformer. That'll teach me to be lazy. :)
Click to expand...

Should have got that, use XT quite a bit myself although still playing with the settings.
 
OK, so here's a small demo. It's not dramatic, the differences are pretty subtle. All shots are 100% crops of the same RAF file, which has had very little done to it.

I set X-Transformer to apply no sharpening, so that we can compare apples to apples.

One shot shows the RAF sharpened in LR at 40%. It's not horrible, but the X-transformer version shows noticeably more detail when sharpened to the same 40% in LR. The third shot is the original RAF sharpened to 80% in LR, which is my best estimate for a version that matches the X-Transformer version for detail. It's still not terrible, but if you look at the flatter stone surfaces, you can see the worms just starting to appear.

Again, it's all quite subtle, and would only be noticeable in large prints, if at all.

My conclusion is that X-Transformer, by pulling more detail out of the RAF, stops me from having to apply as much sharpening, thus reducing the likelihood of worms. Of course, this may be wrong. :-) It's not so much an attempt to convince anyone that I'm right, more an explanation of why I have the opinions that I do.

And obviously, this is with the X-T10. With the X-T2, it may be quite a different story.



LR 40 sharpen by dave.hallett on Talk Photography



X-transformer 40 sharpen by dave.hallett on Talk Photography



LR 80 sharpen by dave.hallett on Talk Photography
 
dave.hallett said:
OK, so here's a small demo. It's not dramatic, the differences are pretty subtle. All shots are 100% crops of the same RAF file, which has had very little done to it.

I set X-Transformer to apply no sharpening, so that we can compare apples to apples.

One shot shows the RAF sharpened in LR at 40%. It's not horrible, but the X-transformer version shows noticeably more detail when sharpened to the same 40% in LR. The third shot is the original RAF sharpened to 80% in LR, which is my best estimate for a version that matches the X-Transformer version for detail. It's still not terrible, but if you look at the flatter stone surfaces, you can see the worms just starting to appear.

Again, it's all quite subtle, and would only be noticeable in large prints, if at all.

My conclusion is that X-Transformer, by pulling more detail out of the RAF, stops me from having to apply as much sharpening, thus reducing the likelihood of worms. Of course, this may be wrong. :) It's not so much an attempt to convince anyone that I'm right, more an explanation of why I have the opinions that I do.

And obviously, this is with the X-T10. With the X-T2, it may be quite a different story.



LR 40 sharpen by dave.hallett on Talk Photography



X-transformer 40 sharpen by dave.hallett on Talk Photography



LR 80 sharpen by dave.hallett on Talk Photography
Click to expand...


A good post that Dave, think I`d still print any of those, and keep it small prints.
 
Enough boring bits of stone. Here's a bit more Chania nightlife. Lighting inspired by Rembrandt, perhaps, but thanks to the light picking out the child over his parents, the overall effect is more like the sentimentality of Norman Rockwell :) This should probably have been taken with my Lens Turbo setup, but actually it's the kit lens again...


Street food by David Hallett, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
tijuana taxi said:
Obviously not up to the job and must emphasise use some kind of metal split ring albeit circular or triangular.
Personally lost faith completely in these connectors and will bin the lot, even the new ones I have.
Click to expand...
I use these Optech connectors with the triangular split ring. Have done for a few years now, with no problems at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top