The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

Nod said:
Better post a few from the X-T2 with its usual companion, the 100-400. Some with the 2x telecon, some without. Other than the Moon (which is cropped to a square, frame filling format), all are just resized and sharpened for the resize from the fine, large JPEGs.

Some in vogue autumn colour (this season's special!)
View attachment 76969 View attachment 76970

A rather grumpy Scottish Wildcat and a Lynx on a log.
View attachment 76971

View attachment 76972

And this evening's Moon.
View attachment 76973
Click to expand...
I've just taken pretty much the same moon shot tonight lol (although can't post it here as I took it with the D750 ;)).

Nice autumn colours and nice kitty.
 
G.K.Jnr. said:
Good idea, I use several Ai/Ais lenses on my Fuji cameras and my 105mm Micro Nikkor is a (D) lens which has a manual aperture ring as do all the (D) lenses.(y)

George.
Click to expand...

Yeah, wish my Sigma had an ap ring, weird for a big macro lens like that not to. It's a big hunk of heavy too, so will be interesting to see how it goes on the Fuji
 
manualfocus-g said:
The moon shot is proper wow, great stuff :) Loving the autumn colours in #2 as well.
Click to expand...

The Moon shot was the easiest to get - the autumn leaves as posted were the only one of about 5 that didn't suffer from horrendous flare since the sun kept squeezing through a gap in the leaves!

snerkler said:
I've just taken pretty much the same moon shot tonight lol (although can't post it here as I took it with the D750 ;)).

Nice autumn colours and nice kitty.
Click to expand...

Can't afford the similar reach for the D750 or I'd post a comparison shot from it! (The shot was with the 2x converter so an EFL [compared to the D750] of 1200mm.) The light on the cats was a bit flat but when the Sun DID shine on them, it was extremely contrasty.

Thanks for looking, glad you enjoyed them.
 
manualfocus-g said:
Great shot, really well seen!Flickr allows you to copy and paste the bb code, which will display the picture in the thread btw.
Click to expand...

Lol Thank you I've been trying for ages as I'm on my iPad and not on my desktop.
 
Nod said:
The Moon shot was the easiest to get - the autumn leaves as posted were the only one of about 5 that didn't suffer from horrendous flare since the sun kept squeezing through a gap in the leaves!



Can't afford the similar reach for the D750 or I'd post a comparison shot from it! (The shot was with the 2x converter so an EFL [compared to the D750] of 1200mm.) The light on the cats was a bit flat but when the Sun DID shine on them, it was extremely contrasty.

Thanks for looking, glad you enjoyed them.
Click to expand...
1200mm :eek: I only shot at 550mm, I feel so inadequate now :LOL:

Here's mine (I'll post the link rather than image due to it being Nikon ;))

https://flic.kr/p/N2KxLu
 
Last edited:
macvisual said:
Cheers, thank you Maggie.

It's a she, 11yrs old and still pretty fit, walked every day and not overfed or given treats at the drop of a hat etc. She's called 'Breia', utterly priceless to us...!!!
Click to expand...

She certainly looks good for her age. She's beautiful.
 
Maggie52 said:
Lol Thank you I've been trying for ages as I'm on my iPad and not on my desktop.
Click to expand...


I think you'll find that it can't be done direct from an iPad Margaret, I've never managed to do it anyway. Maybe someone knows of a work around to enable it to be done.(y)

George.
 
G.K.Jnr. said:
I think you'll find that it can't be done direct from an iPad Margaret, I've never managed to do it anyway. Maybe someone knows of a work around to enable it to be done.(y)

George.
Click to expand...


MIGHT be possible using a browser on the iPad rather than the app. (Not an Appler so don't know!)
 
G.K.Jnr. said:
I think you'll find that it can't be done direct from an iPad Margaret, I've never managed to do it anyway. Maybe someone knows of a work around to enable it to be done.(y)

George.
Click to expand...
I think you could be right, I gave up in the end and logged on my desktop..... I'm a quitter o_O
 
I really should get an adapter for my telescope. 1500mm on the moon should pretty much fill the frame!
 
G.K.Jnr. said:
I'm a thinkin' its about time for another photograph on this thread.:)

X-T2, 105mm Micro Nikkor Lens, 125th @ F5.6, ISO-200, Handheld.
Autumn (12)-03479 by G.K.Jnr., on Flickr

:ty: for looking., (y):fuji:

George.
Click to expand...

Great stuff George, the colours are just right. It was cold today!
 
snerkler said:
I've just looked at the difference between jpeg and RAW histograms with the default Fuji settings and it's quite surprising how different they are :eek: Just another quirk from Fuji ;) I'll try those settins from prophotonut, and try some different ones myself to see which most resembles RAW. Just as an example, here's the difference in jpeg vs RAW with default exposure settings (I don't have default and sharpening but I can't see these making a difference to the histogram, but I guess you never know with Fuji ;))

JPEG
View attachment 76950

RAW
View attachment 76951

At least the RAW file has much better preserved shadows and highlights so at least if you're using the jpeg histogram as a guide it's erring on the side of caution ;)

However, here's the real 'kicker'. This is only true if you use the adobe profile for your RAW photos. If you use the same camera profile as you shot the picture in (in this case Provia Standard) the RAW histogram looks like this
View attachment 76952

A bit more like the jpeg but crushing the blacks a little more with less luminosity in the shadows. At least you know you can recover blacks though as shown by the adobe RAW.
Click to expand...

I did a very brief test of this to see whether it's different on the X-T10. Just photographing a static image on my screen at high ISO, not out in the wild, so a bit artificial perhaps.

Overall, the camera histogram seems quite conservative on highlights. It suggests things are blowing out, but in LR they turn out to have a bit more headroom (but beware very small highlights that don't really show in the histogram).

If you put the RAW in Adobe Std mode, the settings that Damian suggests produce a slightly closer match between JPG and RAW, but it's not night and day.

With the RAW in Pro Neg Std (to match the JPG), the default settings of zero all around give a closer match.

So you might think that in terms of predicting whether you can rescue the highlights and shadows, Damian's settings are better since you can always put the RAW to Adobe Std if you need more headroom (which is exactly what I do when I need it).

The problem is that the camera histogram is so different from either version that I'm not much convinced it makes a real difference. If any other X-T10 owners would like to try this and report back, I'll be interested to hear their conclusions.
 
dave.hallett said:
I did a very brief test of this to see whether it's different on the X-T10. Just photographing a static image on my screen at high ISO, not out in the wild, so a bit artificial perhaps.

Overall, the camera histogram seems quite conservative on highlights. It suggests things are blowing out, but in LR they turn out to have a bit more headroom (but beware very small highlights that don't really show in the histogram).

If you put the RAW in Adobe Std mode, the settings that Damian suggests produce a slightly closer match between JPG and RAW, but it's not night and day.

With the RAW in Pro Neg Std (to match the JPG), the default settings of zero all around give a closer match.

So you might think that in terms of predicting whether you can rescue the highlights and shadows, Damian's settings are better since you can always put the RAW to Adobe Std if you need more headroom (which is exactly what I do when I need it).

The problem is that the camera histogram is so different from either version that I'm not much convinced it makes a real difference. If any other X-T10 owners would like to try this and report back, I'll be interested to hear their conclusions.
Click to expand...
Fairly similar to what I've found then on the whole. But as I said before and I think what you are alluding to it doesn't really matter. When reviewing an image you don't really study each luminance level, you just want to check that exposure is as you'd expect and that either end isn't massively clipping. It's still much more reliable than checking the LCD image in anything other than a dark room. Checking the LCD in daylight can make exposure look way off, but once you get home and load the file onto your computer you find that it was fine.
 
snerkler said:
Fairly similar to what I've found then on the whole. But as I said before and I think what you are alluding to it doesn't really matter. When reviewing an image you don't really study each luminance level, you just want to check that exposure is as you'd expect and that either end isn't massively clipping. It's still much more reliable than checking the LCD image in anything other than a dark room. Checking the LCD in daylight can make exposure look way off, but once you get home and load the file onto your computer you find that it was fine.
Click to expand...
Oh yes. I would still absolutely recommend working off the histogram. I just don't worry if there's little uptick at the end (and I mean small!) because I know that can be pulled back. What doesn't seem to be worthwhile, even though the histogram is supposedly based off the JPEG, is adjusting the JPEG settings in camera to make metering for RAW more accurate. On the X-T10 at least, I don't think it's worth bothering. I'm not even sure it has an effect!
 
dave.hallett said:
Oh yes. I would still absolutely recommend working off the histogram. I just don't worry if there's little uptick at the end (and I mean small!) because I know that can be pulled back. What doesn't seem to be worthwhile, even though the histogram is supposedly based off the JPEG, is adjusting the JPEG settings in camera to make metering for RAW more accurate. On the X-T10 at least, I don't think it's worth bothering. I'm not even sure it has an effect!
Click to expand...
It won't meter any differently per se, it's just to get the tones in the histogram more akin to the RAW. But as you say it's not necessary as you have more leeway in RAW so you know a slight clipping is recoverable, plus as I've mentioned before it depends what RAW profiles you use anyway.

I've actually created some presets using the different RAW camera profiles and tweaked them so that they are as close to the colours and tones of the jpegs as possible. It's never going to be perfect and does vary in accuracy slightly from image to image, but I feel that they are better than just using the RAW camera profiles alone. For example, the provia std RAW profile crushes blacks too much and has too much contrast when compared to the jpeg. I think there's still some tweaking I could do though ;)
 
snerkler said:
It won't meter any differently per se, it's just to get the tones in the histogram more akin to the RAW. But as you say it's not necessary as you have more leeway in RAW so you know a slight clipping is recoverable, plus as I've mentioned before it depends what RAW profiles you use anyway.

I've actually created some presets using the different RAW camera profiles and tweaked them so that they are as close to the colours and tones of the jpegs as possible. It's never going to be perfect and does vary in accuracy slightly from image to image, but I feel that they are better than just using the RAW camera profiles alone. For example, the provia std RAW profile crushes blacks too much and has too much contrast when compared to the jpeg. I think there's still some tweaking I could do though ;)
Click to expand...
Sounds good! But while no doubt Fuji JPGs are nice, I don't bother to record them most of the time, as I've found I never use them, and I don't try to do very much in LR anyway. My goal in LR is just to get the WB looking about right, the exposure OK, the highlights under control and the shadows sufficiently open without losing a sense of the light, the white and black point about right, and a subtle boost to Clarity and/or Vibrance if warranted, though I try to keep Clarity out of the sky. Might sharpen, might not. Then off to Photoshop to get the actual look I want, including any conversion to monochrome, because more tools and greater control of masking basically. When happy with that, back to Lightroom for final adjustments to crop and any vignette, and final check on the white and black points. That's it until I start to think about printing, anyway. I know, much too complex for a working pro who isn't being paid by the hour :-). But I can go pretty fast these days and I'm an amateur who likes messing around with software...
 
Last edited:
G.K.Jnr. said:
I think you'll find that it can't be done direct from an iPad Margaret, I've never managed to do it anyway. Maybe someone knows of a work around to enable it to be done.(y)

George.
Click to expand...
There was a post showing how to do it and i did manage it but it was ages ago ago and ive forgotten,it was difficult even with the guide so i dont bother now
 
I've been using the xpro2 a lot the last few weeks and I do love it. I had however forgotten just how good the xt1 is. Don't get me wrong it's not as fast as the xpro2 but it's still a stunning bit of a kit that due to ergonomics is just perfect with the bigger zooms. I really should use it some more as it's been a joy to mess around with today even if the results have been awful! If the xt1 is as good as it is even against the xpro2 then I am envious of you XT2 owners for sure!
 
I think flikr removed an option that did allow one to do itbut since for whatever reason you cant now do it.very frustrating for tablet users.
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
I think flikr removed an option that did allow one to do itbut since for whatever reason you cant now do it.very frustrating for tablet users.
Click to expand...
You can (on android anyway). You just need to get onto the desktop site rather than the mobile one, and go in via your camera roll.
 
Thanks Ian,it works,sorry bout the crap photo but i just chose 1st one because didnt think it would work lol
 
dave.hallett said:
Sounds good! But while no doubt Fuji JPGs are nice, I don't bother to record them most of the time, as I've found I never use them, and I don't try to do very much in LR anyway. My goal in LR is just to get the WB looking about right, the exposure OK, the highlights under control and the shadows sufficiently open without losing a sense of the light, the white and black point about right, and a subtle boost to Clarity and/or Vibrance if warranted, though I try to keep Clarity out of the sky. Might sharpen, might not. Then off to Photoshop to get the actual look I want, including any conversion to monochrome, because more tools and greater control of masking basically. When happy with that, back to Lightroom for final adjustments to crop and any vignette, and final check on the white and black points. That's it until I start to think about printing, anyway. I know, much too complex for a working pro who isn't being paid by the hour :). But I can go pretty fast these days and I'm an amateur who likes messing around with software...
Click to expand...
I've just been shooting jpeg as well whilst learning about the files and how to process them. Everyone's always raved about the jpegs from Fuji so thoughts I'd see what all the fuss is about ;) I will be switching to RAW only soon,..... until the XT2 GSE is released and available at a sensible price on the used market in which case I'll be shooting jpeg backups on the second card like I do my D750 ;)
 
Anyone heard about the T2 firmware update that was promised for today?
Looking at Fuji site there is not one available. The only flash update is to allow the T1 to use the new flash unit, probably destroying it's ability to use the Nissin i40 in the process.
Anyone know anything?
 
Last edited:
mickledore said:
Anyone heard about the T2 firmware update that was promised for today?
Looking at Fuji site there is not one available. The only flash update is to allow the T1 to use the new flash unit, probably sdestroying it's ability to use the Nissin i40 in the process.
Anyone know anything?
Click to expand...
Hi,

Fuji have delayed the XT-2 firmware until the 29th of Nov.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top