The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

Barrysprout said:
I always blame Nod.

Forgot to put the bins out last night and when Mrs Sprout mentioned it this morning I blamed Nod. She asked me who the **** is this Nod you keep blaming!

When threatened with a picture of him in a mankini she let the subject drop.
Click to expand...
I've seen Nod wearing less than a mankini. In a hot tub in Iceland with a group of very scantily clad nubile young Americans. (Girls, of course!)
 
Nod said:
Exeter LCE only had a kit in stock. Wouldn't split it BUT gave me the price difference between kit and body only as a deal. I suppose I could have taken the kit and flogged the lens on at a slight profit but I CBA so took the easy option! Maybe Fuji have a pile of 18-55s they want shot of? TBH, I'm not sure the 18-55 is a good choice as a kit lens for the X-T1 or 2 - the WR 18-135 is a much better partner IMO, even if it is a bit slower.
Click to expand...
Swanseajack said:
Ffordes are now showing the XT2 & 18-55mm as stock item, all other options a listed as pre - order, as was the XT2 and kit lens when I was considering buying a few weeks ago. Maybe worth a call to check. > http://www.ffordes.com/product/16070709593251

http://www.ffordes.com/category/Dig...Ascending&PageIndex=2&SortExpression=ItemName
Click to expand...
Thanks, I'll take a look.
 
mickledore said:
I've seen Nod wearing less than a mankini. In a hot tub in Iceland with a group of very scantily clad nubile young Americans. (Girls, of course!)
Click to expand...


That's a downright lie! The stench of Chlorine that the hot tubs were exuding even with the lids on was enough to keep me well away from that end of the hotel and it was certainly too cold for me to be outside in my birthday suit!

Keith/Cagey, yes, the 18-55 is marginally better (in real life) than the 18-135 as far as IQ goes (but the differences are very hard to spot in A3+ prints, if you can spot them at all) but the WR properties of the longer lens make it a better partner for the WR bodies in the range.
 
Nod said:
That's a downright lie! The stench of Chlorine that the hot tubs were exuding even with the lids on was enough to keep me well away from that end of the hotel and it was certainly too cold for me to be outside in my birthday suit!
Click to expand...
Yes I probably is. Think it was myself and the delightful Laura from San Fransisco. Boy was she tall. Taller than me!
 
Nicer buns as well! Allegedly!
 
Nod said:
Keith/Cagey, yes, the 18-55 is marginally better (in real life) than the 18-135 as far as IQ goes (but the differences are very hard to spot in A3+ prints, if you can spot them at all) but the WR properties of the longer lens make it a better partner for the WR bodies in the range.
Click to expand...

When i do get some Fuji gear, I think I'll skip on both, though I'm sure both are very capable lenses. But i really want the 35mm F2, it's one of the Fuji lenses that is really swaying me. And I'm one of those fuss pots that hates crossing focal lengths :D - ideally I'd love the 14, 23, 35 and the 55-200 and I'd feel well sorted. But ... the 18-135 doesn't seem a bad idea until I gathered enough for all that. Could sell it on later.
 
ashtennisguru said:
Best thing about the X-T10 for me is that I can carry it around a day of meetings in London and barely notice i've got it on me, so then I can grab some shots on walks between venues...

Millenium Bridge by Ash Smith, on Flickr
Click to expand...
wOOw love this capture Ash, nice and gritty for me. Which film simulation did you use can I ask? Is there much difference between the X-T10 + X-T1?
 
Cagey75 said:
When i do get some Fuji gear, I think I'll skip on both, though I'm sure both are very capable lenses. But i really want the 35mm F2, it's one of the Fuji lenses that is really swaying me. And I'm one of those fuss pots that hates crossing focal lengths :D - ideally I'd love the 14, 23, 35 and the 55-200 and I'd feel well sorted. But ... the 18-135 doesn't seem a bad idea until I gathered enough for all that. Could sell it on later.
Click to expand...

The 35mm f2 is my personal favourite of all Fuji glass to date. Buy one!
 
macvisual said:
wOOw love this capture Ash, nice and gritty for me. Which film simulation did you use can I ask? Is there much difference between the X-T10 + X-T1?
Click to expand...

Thanks Peter. No film simulation - this is processed from the raw file. Not used the X-T1 myself (other than to hold it in the shop), but my understanding is that they are essentially the same, but the X-T1 has an extra control dial on the top and is a little bigger. The X-T1 viewfinder is bigger and "better", but I wanted to go as compact as I could (plus the X-T10 in silver and black is sexy as fudge!)
 
Keith/Cagey, yes, the 18-55 is marginally better (in real life) than the 18-135 as far as IQ goes (but the differences are very hard to spot in A3+ prints, if you can spot them at all) but the WR properties of the longer lens make it a better partner for the WR bodies in the range.[/QUOTE]

+1

I own both lenses and use them regularly on both an X-T2 and an X-T10. As above, the differences to my eyes are hard to spot and I am happy to use either lens dependent on what I am up to for the day and which camera I have with me. I am considering the 35mm F2 as well as I am intrigued by it and I am also after a 10-24mm having just return one that fell to pieces when mounted on my X-T2. Not a good experience. I just prefer using zooms and not having a bag full of lenses rattling around as I walk about. Perhaps as I get better my views and needs will change but I find the 18-55mm and the 18-135mm to be right up my street as it were.
 
ashtennisguru said:
Thanks Peter. No film simulation - this is processed from the raw file. Not used the X-T1 myself (other than to hold it in the shop), but my understanding is that they are essentially the same, but the X-T1 has an extra control dial on the top and is a little bigger. The X-T1 viewfinder is bigger and "better", but I wanted to go as compact as I could (plus the X-T10 in silver and black is sexy as fudge!)
Click to expand...
That and the X-T1 is weather sealed whereas the X-T10 is not.

Not a deal breaker for me either, hence I went with the X-T10.
 
trevjm said:
I own both lenses and use them regularly on both an X-T2 and an X-T10. As above, the differences to my eyes are hard to spot and I am happy to use either lens dependent on what I am up to for the day and which camera I have with me. I am considering the 35mm F2 as well as I am intrigued by it and I am also after a 10-24mm having just return one that fell to pieces when mounted on my X-T2. Not a good experience. I just prefer using zooms and not having a bag full of lenses rattling around as I walk about. Perhaps as I get better my views and needs will change but I find the 18-55mm and the 18-135mm to be right up my street as it were.
Click to expand...



Now if that 18-135 was 2.8-4!! ... but, then it would be twice the price
 
Last edited:
Just because you can doesn't mean you should!
 
yamahatdm900 said:
Thanks David I do like the merge to HDR function in LR, it gives you the end result in 32bit to play with plus you can also use the film presets on the image. I find it a lot quicker than blending images manually.
Click to expand...
I agree! It's my standard "first thing to try" these days if the DR is too great. Photomatix has been retired. The main reason I blend exposures is because if you have a backlit subject, the loss of information in the brightest exposure/s can produce nasty artifacting in foliage and the like, particularly obvious if you start printing large-ish. For hand blending, using luminosity masks takes a lot of the pain out of proceedings...or just match them as closely as possible in Lightroom, then blend in the light exposure where the dark one is too noisy.
 
dave.hallett said:
I agree! It's my standard "first thing to try" these days if the DR is too great. Photomatix has been retired. The main reason I blend exposures is because if you have a backlit subject, the loss of information in the brightest exposure/s can produce nasty artifacting in foliage and the like, particularly obvious if you start printing large-ish. For hand blending, using luminosity masks takes a lot of the pain out of proceedings...or just match them as closely as possible in Lightroom, then blend in the light exposure where the dark one is too noisy.
Click to expand...
Luminosity masks has been on my list to learn for quite a while now must get my head round them.
 
yamahatdm900 said:
Luminosity masks has been on my list to learn for quite a while now must get my head round them.
Click to expand...
I recommend them. That and Select Colour Range will give you all sorts of ideas. There are numerous places out there you can learn, but I like Jimmy McIntyre the best so far. Among other strengths, even though he sells Raya Pro, an actions panel which I personally think is well worth the money, he always explains how to do things without it, so you don't have to buy anything, and you'll always understand what it's doing "under the hood". He's recently started a series where viewers send him images where they've had trouble getting good results, and he shows people how he would approach sorting it out. Lots of good stuff, and all for free. His pictures aren't bad either!
 
dave.hallett said:
I recommend them. That and Select Colour Range will give you all sorts of ideas. There are numerous places out there you can learn, but I like Jimmy McIntyre the best so far. Among other strengths, even though he sells Raya Pro, an actions panel which I personally think is well worth the money, he always explains how to do things without it, so you don't have to buy anything, and you'll always understand what it's doing "under the hood". He's recently started a series where viewers send him images where they've had trouble getting good results, and he shows people how he would approach sorting it out. Lots of good stuff, and all for free. His pictures aren't bad either!
Click to expand...

Thanks Dave I have a look.
 
I just got home from today's wedding and I thought I'd write some thoughts. Especially as someone previously mentioned they didn't think Fuji was good enough for pro-work.

Today I went into the wedding with an X-pro 2, an X-T2 and a Nikon D750.

D750 with 35 F1.4
X-pro 2 with 35 F2 (50mm equivalent)
X-T2 with 56 F1.2 (85mm equivalent).

I also used the 90 F2, 23 F1.4 and 50-140 2.8

Out of interest I've had the D750 for a couple of years, I've had the X-Pro 2 about 7 months and I've had the X-T2 a week.

I thought I'd mainly use the 750 and X-T2. How wrong I was. Within minutes I was mainly using the two fujis. Here's some initial (random) thoughts....

1) Images are sharp, even wide open.
2) I mixed between single and continuos focus using the shutter button to focus and fire (I'd always used back-button focus with Nikon). Hit rate of in-focus images was very high!
3) As the bride and groom walked down the aisle after the service I missed a few shots (in AF-C obviously). I get the point people make about the "black-out" but I can't blame this. At least I don't think I can. I should have been able to keep them in focus intuitively. This is something I'll have to work on.
4) The only time I used the 50-140 was during the speeches. The brides father paced around throughout his speech and this really tested the AF. Performance wasn't great. I used Single Point mode and in hindsight I wonder if Zone or Wide/Tracking would have yielded better results. Light levels were pretty rubbish at this stage.
5). This is a biggie - during the speeches I set up two flashes in the corner of the room. I shot in manual on the Fuji bodies and accepted under exposure knowing the flashes would illuminate the scene. This is where I had a big problem - looking through the EVF everything was nearly pitch black. Obviously this is the cameras way of telling me my shot would be vastly under-exposed. But I knew this and had flashes in place to fix it. So my question is - can I use the EVF without the camera showing me the under exposure. Like with a regular DSLR where what you see through the OVF isn't related to the final exposure.
6). Colours and skin tones are great.
7). Image quality is great - especially at lower ISO.
8). Loved the primes. Can't see myself using the zoom anytime I don't need to.
9). Later in the evening as light levels dropped I felt that the exposure I saw through the EVF was brighter than the resulting picture I captured. In fact I'm not sure that it's overly accurate in good light either.
10). I loved being able to place a focus point just about anywhere I wanted in the frame. I loved some of the compositions I got which won't need to be cropped like they would have with the D750.
11). I'm downloading today's pictures as I type this. But I already know I've shot far fewer images than I would have with my nikons. This is good.
12). I had to change the X-T2 battery today but I wasn't changing batteries every 5 minutes like I feared I would.

I'm sure I'll think of other things to add to the list. Especially once I get editing the shots.

I was pleased I didn't play safe with the D750 like I thought I would and I really enjoyed shooting with the Fujis, especially the X-Pro 2.

I hope this little résumé is of use to someone.
 
Last edited:
Good to hear, that Fuji gear is good enough for weddings ...

It does make me ponder though, on the fact it's always wedding 'togs' who really need to reassure themselves when it comes to gear. And I am not aiming this at anyone in particular, just been thinking on it here and there, and I have shot weddings.

Sometimes I think it's just that flash car/"look ma I'm a pro"/"mine is better than yours!" syndrome that wedding photographers tend to suffer above any other type shooter. I mean, I've seen studio portrait specialists use the most left-field gear, often tiny bodies and minimal light assistance without a moan or excuse for it. I've seen commercial/product photographers use old D40 bodies with ridiculous lenses and produce stunning results and never make excuses for their gear ... but wedding photographers!? They seem to always feel the need to explain/excuse their gear choices. WHY? Ok, you shoot in unforgiving lighting conditions ... sometimes! [any church I have ever shot in has been really forgiving to be honest, and the priest/reverend has always given me full freedom, including the use of flash] So why is it that when camera bodies and/or lenses are being discussed and considered, do weddings ALWAYS pop up as if it was the ultimate test? I think wildlife photographers and sports photographers have much harder jobs than weddings photographers and get paid a lot less :/
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
Good to hear, that Fuji gear is good enough for weddings ...

It does make me ponder though, on the fact it's always wedding 'togs' who really need to reassure themselves when it comes to gear. And I am not aiming this at anyone in particular, just been thinking on it here and there, and I have shot weddings.

Sometimes I think it's just that flash car/"look ma I'm a pro"/"mine is better than yours!" syndrome that wedding photographers tend to suffer above any other type shooter. I mean, I've seen studio portrait specialists use the most left-field gear, often tiny bodies and minimal light assistance without a moan or excuse for it. I've seen commercial/product photographers use old D40 bodies with ridiculous lenses and produce stunning results and never make excuses for their gear ... but wedding photographers!? They seem to always feel the need to explain/excuse their gear choices. WHY? Ok, you shoot in unforgiving lighting conditions ... sometimes! [any church I have ever shot in has been really forgiving to be honest, and the priest/reverend has always given me full freedom, including the use of flash] So why is it that when camera bodies and/or lenses are being discussed and considered, do weddings ALWAYS pop up as if it was the ultimate test? I think wildlife photographers and sports photographers have much harder jobs than weddings photographers and get paid a lot less :/
Click to expand...
I guess it's the pressure wedding togs are under. Your point stands about geoup/posed shots, but most of the important ones like the aisle walk, the kiss, rings on fingers etc you only get one shot at them.
Not to mention the fact that people are probably paying a damn sight more for weddings than a paper or something would for that goal or foul that you and a whole row of other photographers captured.
It might not be quite as demanding for the camera technically, but you need 100% reliability that you'l get the shot you were after.
 
Ive shot three weddings now and the pressure is huge, i completely f***ed one up was awful got stressed gave myself a migraine! but they loved their photos they weren't great but they loved them, i digress. But the kit and getting the maximum out of it and reliability is one huge area thats key and really does take the pressure away from knowing that the kit will cope and then its just down to you and your skills after that
 
maybe I've just been lucky, shot 6 weddings now [and I am not a wedding tog, just want to point that out now] and all went well. Of course I felt the challenge, I was a bit stressed out before a few of them - but on the day [and every one of them I covered full, make up to last dance and beyond/drunken end of night/morn pics] I felt a strange sense of calm, in control. I think it's all about prep for jobs like that. i know it's hard, I felt like the day wouldn't end on at least 2 of them. but I'm talking gear here ... why do wedding photographers above any others, worry so much about what gear they use? or how they might be perceived because of that gear? End result is what matters.
 
Cagey75 said:
maybe I've just been lucky, shot 6 weddings now [and I am not a wedding tog, just want to point that out now] and all went well. Of course I felt the challenge, I was a bit stressed out before a few of them - but on the day [and every one of them I covered full, make up to last dance and beyond/drunken end of night/morn pics] I felt a strange sense of calm, in control. I think it's all about prep for jobs like that. i know it's hard, I felt like the day wouldn't end on at least 2 of them. but I'm talking gear here ... why do wedding photographers above any others, worry so much about what gear they use? or how they might be perceived because of that gear? End result is what matters.
Click to expand...
i didn't care what they thought of my gear, the reliability of the gear for me was the key. If you are walking round at a wedding taking photos chances are everyone is going to know you are the tog. Only some will be looking at your kit thinking that they can buy it take better photos, but they aren't the ones doing the gig i always think.
 
Nuzik said:
i didn't care what they thought of my gear, the reliability of the gear for me was the key. If you are walking round at a wedding taking photos chances are everyone is going to know you are the tog. Only some will be looking at your kit thinking that they can buy it take better photos, but they aren't the ones doing the gig i always think.
Click to expand...


I haven't done one yet with fuji gear, as i don't actually own any yet :D But I know it won't bother me in the slightest. Even when I used the D800E and fancy lenses, there was always 'Uncle Bob' with his canon 5D Mk III and 70-200 trying to bully me out the way. Thankfully I'm a big enough guy and have hard elbows ;) It doesn't matter the gear, with weddings it's about being dominant, let everyone know who the Alpha is. I've even used the "look toward the BIG camera" shout for groups a few times, when they were all being distracted by cam phones. Maybe there it makes a little difference? But I think even with Fuji gear you can do that, make yourself bigger, the gear will follow.
 
ryanyboy said:
I just got home from today's wedding and I thought I'd write some thoughts. Especially as someone previously mentioned they didn't think Fuji was good enough for pro-work.

Today I went into the wedding with an X-pro 2, an X-T2 and a Nikon D750.

D750 with 35 F1.4
X-pro 2 with 35 F2 (50mm equivalent)
X-T2 with 56 F1.2 (85mm equivalent).

I also used the 90 F2, 23 F1.4 and 50-140 2.8

Out of interest I've had the D750 for a couple of years, I've had the X-Pro 2 about 7 months and I've had the X-T2 a week.

I thought I'd mainly use the 750 and X-T2. How wrong I was. Within minutes I was mainly using the two fujis. Here's some initial (random) thoughts....

1) Images are sharp, even wide open.
2) I mixed between single and continuos focus using the shutter button to focus and fire (I'd always used back-button focus with Nikon). Hit rate of in-focus images was very high!
3) As the bride and groom walked down the aisle after the service I missed a few shots (in AF-C obviously). I get the point people make about the "black-out" but I can't blame this. At least I don't think I can. I should have been able to keep them in focus intuitively. This is something I'll have to work on.
4) The only time I used the 50-140 was during the speeches. The brides father paced around throughout his speech and this really tested the AF. Performance wasn't great. I used Single Point mode and in hindsight I wonder if Zone or Wide/Tracking would have yielded better results. Light levels were pretty rubbish at this stage.
5). This is a biggie - during the speeches I set up two flashes in the corner of the room. I shot in manual on the Fuji bodies and accepted under exposure knowing the flashes would illuminate the scene. This is where I had a big problem - looking through the EVF everything was nearly pitch black. Obviously this is the cameras way of telling me my shot would be vastly under-exposed. But I knew this and had flashes in place to fix it. So my question is - can I use the EVF without the camera showing me the under exposure. Like with a regular DSLR where what you see through the OVF isn't related to the final exposure.
6). Colours and skin tones are great.
7). Image quality is great - especially at lower ISO.
8). Loved the primes. Can't see myself using the zoom anytime I don't need to.
9). Later in the evening as light levels dropped I felt that the exposure I saw through the EVF was brighter than the resulting picture I captured. In fact I'm not sure that it's overly accurate in good light either.
10). I loved being able to place a focus point just about anywhere I wanted in the frame. I loved some of the compositions I got which won't need to be cropped like they would have with the D750.
11). I'm downloading today's pictures as I type this. But I already know I've shot far fewer images than I would have with my nikons. This is good.
12). I had to change the X-T2 battery today but I wasn't changing batteries every 5 minutes like I feared I would.

I'm sure I'll think of other things to add to the list. Especially once I get editing the shots.

I was pleased I didn't play safe with the D750 like I thought I would and I really enjoyed shooting with the Fujis, especially the X-Pro 2.

I hope this little résumé is of use to someone.
Click to expand...
Interesting feedback, thanks. I have a few questions if you don't mind answering them please?

1. Which camera were you using when you said AF wasn't great during the speeches and also with the missed shots of the bride and groom walking down the aisle, X-Pro 2 or X-T2?
2. How does the X-T2 compare in AF to the X-Pro 2 and more importantly the D750?
3. Finally, if you were struggling with the AF on the Fuji why did you choose to stick with these and not go back to the D750?
 
2. Been there dude I did a wedding and got two! It was like being at Usain Bolts wedding (bloody ran down the aisle). Put some others in bw lol. Perfectly happy clients

How did the batteries last on the xt2? Did you have a grip how were the ergonomics for the full day. Did you use a flash.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
I haven't done one yet with fuji gear, as i don't actually own any yet :D But I know it won't bother me in the slightest. Even when I used the D800E and fancy lenses, there was always 'Uncle Bob' with his canon 5D Mk III and 70-200 trying to bully me out the way. Thankfully I'm a big enough guy and have hard elbows ;) It doesn't matter the gear, with weddings it's about being dominant, let everyone know who the Alpha is. I've even used the "look toward the BIG camera" shout for groups a few times, when they were all being distracted by cam phones. Maybe there it makes a little difference? But I think even with Fuji gear you can do that, make yourself bigger, the gear will follow.
Click to expand...

With a Fuji you could shout:

"Look at the old camera"
"Look at the classic camera"
"Look at this sexy mother of a retro camera!"

I've only shot one wedding at that was enough for me. Everyone and everything was dressed in white FFS, nightmare! :D
 
snerkler said:
Interesting feedback, thanks. I have a few questions if you don't mind answering them please?

1. Which camera were you using when you said AF wasn't great during the speeches and also with the missed shots of the bride and groom walking down the aisle, X-Pro 2 or X-T2?
2. How does the X-T2 compare in AF to the X-Pro 2 and more importantly the D750?
3. Finally, if you were struggling with the AF on the Fuji why did you choose to stick with these and not go back to the D750?
Click to expand...

I don't mind at all.

1) Speeches - X-T2, bride and groom walking down aisle - D750.
2) I didn't notice any major difference between the two Fuji's in terms of AF although I tended to use the 35 F2 on the X-Pro 2 and a mix of longer lenses on the X-T2. So in terms of AF I guess the X-T2 had the bigger challenge.
3) Ultimately I intend to shoot solely with Fuji's going forward so I preferred to carry on using the fuji's throughout the day. I was getting enough in focus shots that it didn't matter if the occasional one missed. And this was nothing different to what I'm used to with Nikon. As you can see for my answer above, it was the D750 that missed the aisle shots. The number of times I've seen the D750 lock on to someone in the background when I've shot an aisle shot is ridiculous. I nearly always continually re-focus on shots like this to try to force focus onto the subject in case it's missing.

Hope this answers your questions :)
 
Interesting stuff there about wedding shooting - to be honest I can see why they have to have big cameras, and its nothing to do with how the camera performs, but that people in that sort of situation where they've invested thousands and are stressed and only really catch glimpses of the photographer want to know that that person is serious about their job and their kit and sadly the old adage of bigger is better does seam to factor.

Now personally I wouldn't do a wedding, I'm just not that good or know my camera well enough.

On to another subject - it looks like the 100-400 I was sort of saving for is not an option now, all beacuse of a room tidy :)

Tidy away the old Xbox 360, yeah the daughter can have it, great idea. Hmn, her TV doesn't have HDMI, hmn... well I could get a scart cable (we threw that cable out before in the last tidy!!), but thats a bit naff - scart, so last century :D, so a little TV, okay looks like that will be around £100, sod it we'll upgrade the front room TV!

So todays job, out for rugby in the morning, TV in the afternoon, then the great shuffle - front room TV to bedroom, bedroom tv to daughters room and the little lad gets his own TV - happy all round, excpet for whoever was going to sell me the 100-400...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top