The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

Nuzik said:
I had d700 you want to hear shutter sound it sounds like balls slapping against an ass
Click to expand...


Music to my ears. :whistle::)

George.
 
snerkler said:
And more like the 16-55 ;)
Click to expand...

That is the only reason they didn't have 2.8 for a little longer, it would scuff sales of other, 'fancier' lenses. But, all manufacturers do this, and give some spiel about it not being possible to keep the size and weight down. Sigma's 18-35 1.8 would like a word! :D

Ok, an extreme case there, well, Tamron's humble old 17-50 2.8 is ready to testify! It's no bigger than the Fuji 18-55, or heavier. Great lens that was, my first constant aperture zoom, and I got it for £200
 
Last edited:
psybear said:
I love it - but the sky is somewhat surreal! How did you process it?
Click to expand...

Badly!!!! It was given a light haircut in lightoom, then exported to SIlver Efex Pro, where I used one of my custom 'Northern Grritty' filters, I then used the selective colour function on multiple Silver Efex control points (but didn't cover the whole image). The selective colour gave me the desaturated look.So really its a colour image thats been processed into b/w and then parts of it pulled back to desaturated colour.

I'm really not sure I like it, but I'm not sure meddling more would help!!!
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Badly!!!! It was given a light haircut in lightoom, then exported to SIlver Efex Pro, where I used one of my custom 'Northern Grritty' filters, I then used the selective colour function on multiple Silver Efex control points (but didn't cover the whole image). The selective colour gave me the desaturated look.So really its a colour image thats been processed into b/w and then parts of it pulled back to desaturated colour.

I'm really not sure I like it, but I'm not sure meddling more would help!!!
Click to expand...
I'm not usually a fan of over done skies but I think it really works with this image.
 
I know it's not the right forum, but we're all Fuji users and some of us use both the P2 and T2 I see there's a firmware update for the X Pro 2 that fixes the problem with the Nissin i40 not working !
 
I personally think no.3 works really well. Slightly surreal sky perhaps but non the less I think it works! All in all a great set of images.
 
@rookies you asked about the XT2's noise handling compared to the A7II so thought I'd share this

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...1&x=0.13329506973540733&y=-0.9792405386975794

Looking on DPreview you would possible say that the XT2 is better than the A7II. However, if you actually download the files and load them into LR with LR's default colour noise setting the A7II files are actually a touch better than the XT2. If I export the files from the cameras in that link downsampling them to match the XT1 resolution (so a fair measure of noise) then the order of noise handling from best to worst is D750 > A7II > XT2 > XT1. However, the difference between the A7II and XT2 is only marginal which is pretty impressive when you consider the difference in size of the sensors. Based on that I'd be happy to use the XT2 at 6400 ISO (although I'd have to do some real world testing to know for sure (y))

Edit: Just compared the XT2 to the D500 (exported to the same res) and they're about the same, so a very impressive job from Fooj (y)
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
@rookies you asked about the XT2's noise handling compared to the A7II so thought I'd share this

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...1&x=0.13329506973540733&y=-0.9792405386975794

Looking on DPreview you would possible say that the XT2 is better than the A7II. However, if you actually download the files and load them into LR with LR's default colour noise setting the A7II files are actually a touch better than the XT2. If I export the files from the cameras in that link downsampling them to match the XT1 resolution (so a fair measure of noise) then the order of noise handling from best to worst is D750 > A7II > XT2 > XT1. However, the difference between the A7II and XT2 is only marginal which is pretty impressive when you consider the difference in size of the sensors. Based on that I'd be happy to use the XT2 at 6400 ISO (although I'd have to do some real world testing to know for sure (y))
Click to expand...

This one is at 6400, i shared before but its a good example of how good the quality is and its a huge file, taken from RAW obviously
hugo by Neil Hinder, on Flickr
 
Nuzik said:
This one is at 6400, i shared before but its a good example of how good the quality is and its a huge file, taken from RAW obviously
hugo by Neil Hinder, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Yeah I remember seeing that and thought it looked very clean. Trouble with looking at processed images you don't know how much sharpening and NR's been applied though.
 
snerkler said:
Yeah I remember seeing that and thought it looked very clean. Trouble with looking at processed images you don't know how much sharpening and NR's been applied though.
Click to expand...
I didnt keep the file,
but clarity went up to about 32 vibrance up saturation down. Exposure down a little and some other tweeks with shadows and whites but that was it no NR I use photoshop not LR so i have nothing said as a preset
 
snerkler said:
@rookies you asked about the XT2's noise handling compared to the A7II so thought I'd share this

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...1&x=0.13329506973540733&y=-0.9792405386975794

Looking on DPreview you would possible say that the XT2 is better than the A7II. However, if you actually download the files and load them into LR with LR's default colour noise setting the A7II files are actually a touch better than the XT2. If I export the files from the cameras in that link downsampling them to match the XT1 resolution (so a fair measure of noise) then the order of noise handling from best to worst is D750 > A7II > XT2 > XT1. However, the difference between the A7II and XT2 is only marginal which is pretty impressive when you consider the difference in size of the sensors. Based on that I'd be happy to use the XT2 at 6400 ISO (although I'd have to do some real world testing to know for sure (y))

Edit: Just compared the XT2 to the D500 (exported to the same res) and they're about the same, so a very impressive job from Fooj (y)
Click to expand...

Cheers pal will have a look when at the iMac
 
Mr Perceptive said:
A couple more from Monday


161107 Castlefields, Manchester by Mr Perceptive X100, on Flickr


161107 Lowry Theatre 02 by Mr Perceptive X100, on Flickr

And not sure about this one....


161107 Lowry Theatre 01 by Mr Perceptive X100, on Flickr
Click to expand...


Three very nice shots again David, my fav's would have to be the mono shots particularly #2 with its good lead in lines, nice sky and reflections. #1 is also right on the money for me with good comp', sky & reflections. Lovely full range of punchy mono tones in both of them.(y)

George.
 
snerkler said:
Really nice Brian. Makes me wish I lived near and interesting City. Can't have everything I guess as I do live in the Peak District, but it would be nice ;)
Click to expand...
I live in Swindon be great full you get to take decent photos of where you live. I struggle having exciting scenery either landscape or town
 
Nuzik said:
I live in Swindon be great full you get to take decent photos of where you live. I struggle having exciting scenery either landscape or town
Click to expand...
You have my deepest sympathy :sneaky::whistle:
 
Nuzik said:
I live in Swindon be great full you get to take decent photos of where you live. I struggle having exciting scenery either landscape or town
Click to expand...

You need to get out more!!! Bath and Oxford are but short journeys away, and you have the Ridgeway on your doorstep, yes a lot of Wiltshire is flat (ish), but you really are near some interesting places.

snerkler said:
Really nice Brian. Makes me wish I lived near and interesting City. Can't have everything I guess as I do live in the Peak District, but it would be nice ;)
Click to expand...

All cities/towns have interesting things, you just need to find them!!!
 
Mr Perceptive said:
All cities/towns have interesting things, you just need to find them!!!
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was a little tongue in cheek. Although big cities are easier to blend in and I feel less conspicuous taking photos :oops: :$
 
snerkler said:
Yeah, it was a little tongue in cheek. Although big cities are easier to blend in and I feel less conspicuous taking photos :oops: :$
Click to expand...

You live in a interesting city some lovely old building to take images of. The church in mono on a dull day be good
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top