The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

Must be a day for shooting the pets [feel like shooting them at times alright! :D ]

I'm at 1/15 here with the 55-200, could probably go slower easy enough but this cat rarely stays still as is! We actually have 2 but one of them is off doing God knows what most of the time, this one, Scout, never bloody goes out, when she does she gets lost ... dim wit :D

_DSF9454 by Enticing Imagery, on Flickr

_DSF9451 by Enticing Imagery, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
I've to say looks like OIS on these lens are superb
 
manualfocus-g said:
I've just been shooting around the house and the 55-200mm is fairly consistent at delivering sharp images at 1/15th second at 200mm, incredible stuff :D
Click to expand...


I've been pretty impressed with it. It's a joy for me after my failed Sigma 150mm, the OS never really worked great on that, for such a pricey lens. I've done this too, just been around the house taking random snaps of anything still ,testing it out. The kids think I'm crazy, but who cares? I gots OIS!! :banana:
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
Must be a day for shooting the pets [feel like shooting them at times alright! :D ]

I'm at 1/15 here with the 55-200, could probably go slower easy enough but this cat rarely stays still as is! We actually have 2 but one of them is off doing God knows what most of the time, this one, Scout, never bloody goes out, when she does she gets lost ... dim wit :D

_DSF9454 by Enticing Imagery, on Flickr

_DSF9451 by Enticing Imagery, on Flickr
Click to expand...


That is a cute (and sharp :D) moggy you have there!
 
manualfocus-g said:
That is a cute (and sharp :D) moggy you have there!
Click to expand...

I tell everyone she's a simpleton, lol, but when she goes missing [lost] I'm the first to go fetch her. She has me wrapped around her little paw! :D When i try to take pics of her with smaller lenses, she attacks them :D so the 55-200 is perfect, i can keep distance from her and she doesn't try run off
 
Cagey75 said:
I tell everyone she's a simpleton, lol, but when she goes missing [lost] I'm the first to go fetch her. She has me wrapped around her little paw! :D When i try to take pics of her with smaller lenses, she attacks them :D so the 55-200 is perfect, i can keep distance from her and she doesn't try run off
Click to expand...

And with a xt1 so a great capture. You getting a xt2?
 
snerkler said:
Lol, what difference does it make which camera it was? ;)
Click to expand...

Was only seeing if he upgrading that's all I know many cameras be able to capture that image
 
rookies said:
And with a xt1 so a great capture. You getting a xt2?
Click to expand...


The XT-1 is plenty enough for me atm, i would love the 2, and maybe will grab a used one next year. The only advantage for me really would be slightly better low noise performance. The extra MP are nice too, for cropping, but i think I get into bad habits on that score. I had the D800E and was able to crop down insane amoutn and still have a good quality image. It can make you a bit lazy. I'd like the 4K video too I guess, but I rarely use video on camera, just use the phone for casual stuff.
 
Last edited:
Odd can't set test to share I did A7ii with xt2 wonder which you guys pick best out of test
 
rookies said:
Odd can't set test to share I did A7ii with xt2 wonder which you guys pick best out of test
Click to expand...


Just tested them there, if i were an A7II owner I wouldn't look at the difference on the plants :/ holy cow, the XT-2 murders it

Nuzik said:
look at the D750 compared to the X-t2 on the bottle at the bottom on 200 its better on the xt2 by a country mile
Click to expand...

Seems to beat it up to 3200 where the 750's better ISO handling kicks in
 
Last edited:
Nuzik said:
look at the D750 compared to the X-t2 on the bottle at the bottom on 200 its better on the xt2 by a country mile
Click to expand...
You have some weird eyes ;) But just so we're looking at the same thing, are you looking at RAW or jpeg, and are you looking at the well lit scene or low light.?

Jpeg comparison is not the best comparison as they have different jpeg engines and some apply heavier NR than others. But comparing RAW the Nikon is better at all ISO imo, bright light and low light. The Nikon lens has bad CA and maybe this is what's making you think that the Fuji is better. To me the blacks are better on the Nikon, as are fine detail, but they're extremely close which is credit to the Fuji given the smaller sensor. Take the ISO to 1600 and above and the difference is more considerable. The Fuji becomes more smudged showing evidence of NR being applied to RAW, and even then it's noisier.

However, you would expect this given it's FF compared to APS-C. What's a more impressive comparison is the D500 vs the X-T1. The D500 is really the pinnacle of APS-C sensors and imo the X-T2 matches it, very impressive :)
 
rookies said:
Be interested in this 55-200 as they can be got quit cheap. Are they sharp nice lens as wondering wether got this over the 40-150 as it a lens I don't use alot
Click to expand...

I'd say for you buy the 55-200 over the 50-140, much much cheaper and when you decide fuji isn't for you you won't lose so much money
 
Just noticed how big the RAW files are in the X-T2, over 40mb :eek: Do they slow Lightroom up at all, especially making 1:1 previews?
 
snerkler said:
Just noticed how big the RAW files are in the X-T2, over 40mb :eek: Do they slow Lightroom up at all, especially making 1:1 previews?
Click to expand...


Even the XT-1 RAW files are hefty, but after coming from a D800, nothing really seems huge :D My D800E RAWs averaged 70-80mb a piece.

I am finding though, when I shoot RAW + Jpeg with the XT-1, it cripples the laptop for a bit during import. My main lappy is awaiting an LCD replacement, so I'm on an older on for a bit. Can't really compare directly, but it sure takes a long time to get to develop mode in LR6 with these Fuji files.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
Even the XT-1 RAW files are hefty, but after coming from a D800, nothing really seems huge :D My D800E RAWs averaged 70-80mb a piece.

I am finding though, when I shoot RAW + Jpeg with the XT-1, it cripples the laptop for a bit during import. My main lappy is awaiting an LCD replacement, so I'm on an older on for a bit. Can't really compare directly, but it sure takes a long time to get to develop mode in LR6 with these Fuji files.
Click to expand...
I've not noticed any sluggishness with my X-T1 files TBH, but then RAW file size is pretty much the same as my D750, although the XT1 are only 16mp vs 24mp on the D750. D750 are lossless compressed though.
 
snerkler said:
I've not noticed any sluggishness with my X-T1 files TBH, but then RAW file size is pretty much the same as my D750, although the XT1 are only 16mp vs 24mp on the D750. D750 are lossless compressed though.
Click to expand...


I reckon it's more to do with the laptop. The one I'm one atm is my old HP W7 i3 with 3GB RAM, my newer one is an Acer i7 with 8GB RAM and much, much faster. I can't wait to get that back up and running, it should breeze through bunches of RAWs. It had no trouble with D800 ones, and there was times I would process up to 500 at a time, for a wedding or event I'd shot. I only ever shot RAW with Nikon, I'm using both for now with the Fuji while I get a better feel for it. And I have found I am processing the JPEGs a little more. unless I want to change the film style in post, then I'll use the RAW or RAF version.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
I reckon it's more to do with the laptop. The one I'm one atm is my old HP W7 i3 with 3GB RAM, my newer one is an Acer i7 with 8GB RAM and much, much faster. I can't wait to get that back up and running, it should breeze through bunches of RAWs. It had no trouble with D800 ones, and there was times I would process up to 500 at a time, for a wedding or event I'd shot. I only ever shot RAW with Nikon, I'm using both for now with the Fuji while I get a better feel for it. And I have found I am processing the JPEGs a little more. unless I want to change the film style in post, then I'll use the RAW or RAF version.
Click to expand...
I think this is likely to be true. My desktop i5 has no problems with X-T10 (exactly the same as X-T1) RAW files, but laptop CPUs are underpowered compared to the desktop CPUs of the same name (marketing antics!) and IIRC, Lightroom can only use a single core, so maximum clock speed counts for everything.
 
dave.hallett said:
I think this is likely to be true. My desktop i5 has no problems with X-T10 (exactly the same as X-T1) RAW files, but laptop CPUs are underpowered compared to the desktop CPUs of the same name (marketing antics!) and IIRC, Lightroom can only use a single core, so maximum clock speed counts for everything.
Click to expand...


I thought RAM played a big part also. Just checked the specs on this one and I completely forgot that I'd added some [default came with only 3GB], so it's actually running 6GB RAM, but it feels nowhere near that. Maybe this thing is just knackered, it is about 5yrs old. My other one is a beast, or was at least. It's almost 3yrs old but it was a pricey one, 17" with the i7 processor, and a reasonable [for photo edits] Nvidia card onboard. I bought specifically for photo processing at the time, with those big ol' D800 files. The LCD started to bleed recently, and when i tried 'fix' it, well, it bled some more :D Luckily I have found where to get a complete replacement LCD and it doesn't seem hard to install.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
Even the XT-1 RAW files are hefty, but after coming from a D800, nothing really seems huge :D My D800E RAWs averaged 70-80mb a piece.

I am finding though, when I shoot RAW + Jpeg with the XT-1, it cripples the laptop for a bit during import. My main lappy is awaiting an LCD replacement, so I'm on an older on for a bit. Can't really compare directly, but it sure takes a long time to get to develop mode in LR6 with these Fuji files.
Click to expand...

LR 6 and XT2 is painful compared to LR5 and XT1, I gave up with it on my last laptop it couldn't manage it. Can't install LR6 on the new one as it only has 32bit OS! 64bit replacement arrives tomorrow, then we can see if the new machine will perform any better. .
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
LR 6 and XT2 is painful compared to LR5 and XT1, I gave up with it on my last laptop it couldn't manage it. Can't install LR6 on the new one as it only has 32bit OS! 64bit replacement arrives tomorrow, then we can see if the new machine will perform any better. .
Click to expand...

I'm just on the trial for LRCC on this, might revert back to LR5 as I agree, it seemed a little quicker. I don't see any real major difference to the CC one, only that dehaze option, which is nice. Maybe I'll just continue on LR5.7 on here, and when i get the other one fixed up I'll try LRCC again.
 
cc is better, its the one to get it updates throughout the year and its pretty. I use photoshop, you need lots of ram for LR and you need a good processor as well if you want it to work quickly.
 
snerkler said:
You have some weird eyes ;) But just so we're looking at the same thing, are you looking at RAW or jpeg, and are you looking at the well lit scene or low light.?

Jpeg comparison is not the best comparison as they have different jpeg engines and some apply heavier NR than others. But comparing RAW the Nikon is better at all ISO imo, bright light and low light. The Nikon lens has bad CA and maybe this is what's making you think that the Fuji is better. To me the blacks are better on the Nikon, as are fine detail, but they're extremely close which is credit to the Fuji given the smaller sensor. Take the ISO to 1600 and above and the difference is more considerable. The Fuji becomes more smudged showing evidence of NR being applied to RAW, and even then it's noisier.

However, you would expect this given it's FF compared to APS-C. What's a more impressive comparison is the D500 vs the X-T1. The D500 is really the pinnacle of APS-C sensors and imo the X-T2 matches it, very impressive :)
Click to expand...
maybe its your eyes! not mine. Look at the low ISO's and get those rose tinted 750 glasses off, i know your type!
 
Cagey75 said:
I thought RAM played a big part also. Just checked the specs on this one and I completely forgot that I'd added some [default came with only 3GB], so it's actually running 6GB RAM, but it feels nowhere near that. Maybe this thing is just knackered, it is about 5yrs old. My other one is a beast, or was at least. It's almost 3yrs old but it was a pricey one, 17" with the i7 processor, and a reasonable [for photo edits] Nvidia card onboard. I bought specifically for photo processing at the time, with those big ol' D800 files. The LCD started to bleed recently, and when i tried 'fix' it, well, it bled some more :D Luckily I have found where to get a complete replacement LCD and it doesn't seem hard to install.
Click to expand...
Yes, RAM does matter, but not so much for LR, as I recall. I think you'll see the difference with RAM more in PS working with big files and lots of layers, especially when using certain filters (I have 16GB in this machine and it seems to be plenty, 8GB might well be enough if you're not in the habit of shooting big panos). LR however is very CPU-bound and I suspect not terribly well coded for modern hardware.
 
On my other machine I have PS CS too, and you can set the nvidia card to run it in place of the Intel 4000, or whichever it is [forget] and it does run very smoothly. Don't have PS on this one. Do you know if you sign up for LR/PS CC p.m if you can have it on more than one machine? Also, is it pay by month in advance, rather than direct debit commitment?
 
Cagey75 said:
On my other machine I have PS CS too, and you can set the nvidia card to run it in place of the Intel 4000, or whichever it is [forget] and it does run very smoothly. Don't have PS on this one. Do you know if you sign up for LR/PS CC p.m if you can have it on more than one machine? Also, is it pay by month in advance, rather than direct debit commitment?
Click to expand...
its a 12 month contract and i have it on both my machines, payable by DD. But id be lost without it
 
Nuzik said:
its a 12 month contract and i have it on both my machines, payable by DD. But id be lost without it
Click to expand...


Good to know I can split it. It's a reasonable price for that, what is it? €4 p.w or so?
 
I've only got the X-T1 to compare with, but found importing files with cc / lr6 was significantly quicker compared to 5.7.1. Processing was about the same though (all on my i7 desktop, 8GB RAM, SSD).

Out if interest, I wonder if I'm the only one here processing images via a Chromebook? I have the full HD Toshiba Chromebook 2 and remote into my desktop for photo work #googlegeek
 
Cagey75 said:
I'm just on the trial for LRCC on this, might revert back to LR5 as I agree, it seemed a little quicker. I don't see any real major difference to the CC one, only that dehaze option, which is nice. Maybe I'll just continue on LR5.7 on here, and when i get the other one fixed up I'll try LRCC again.
Click to expand...

I wish I could do the same, but I need 6 for the X-T2. If I keep it that is, it's disappointing me a lot at the moment with it's under exposure and slightly lacklustre colours compared to the X-T1.
 
Nuzik said:
its £9 per month i pay
Click to expand...

It's asking me for €12.29 p.m, which is £10.59 currently. You must have bought in on a promo or special rate at the time?

Alan Clogwyn said:
I wish I could do the same, but I need 6 for the X-T2. If I keep it that is, it's disappointing me a lot at the moment with it's under exposure and slightly lacklustre colours compared to the X-T1.
Click to expand...

Really? I would have thought the 2 would have richer ... everything tbh. Maybe the larger files really demand a more powerful cpu for processing comfortably

When i first bought the D800E, the advice was to get a powerful rig for processing, because those RAWs can be unforgiving. I never wanted to shoot Jpeg with Nikon, in the 10 years i shot with their cameras. Always RAW only. The Fuji has me shooting Jpeg more often, and opting for the Jpeg file in LR rather than the RAF a lot more than I thought. Sometimes the RAFs look washed out, and even after processing, they are often noisier than the Jpeg too. I don't know how they do it, but Fuji certainly know Jpeg
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
It's asking me for €12.29 p.m, which is £10.59 currently. You must have bought in on a promo or special rate at the time?



Really? I would have thought the 2 would have richer ... everything tbh. Maybe the larger files really demand a more powerful cpu for processing comfortably
Click to expand...

it was so long ago and i never check my bank it could well be. But its worth it dude, trust me. with CC you get all the updates for both PS and LR so if a new one comes out you get it.
 
Cagey75 said:
It's asking me for €12.29 p.m, which is £10.59 currently. You must have bought in on a promo or special rate at the time?



Really? I would have thought the 2 would have richer ... everything tbh. Maybe the larger files really demand a more powerful cpu for processing comfortably

When i first bought the D800E, the advice was to get a powerful rig for processing, because those RAWs can be unforgiving. I never wanted to shoot Jpeg with Nikon, in the 10 years i shot with their cameras. Always RAW only. The Fuji has me shooting Jpeg more often, and opting for the Jpeg file in LR rather than the RAF a lot more than I thought. Sometimes the RAFs look washed out, and even after processing, they are often noisier than the Jpeg too. I don't know how they do it, but Fuji certainly know Jpeg
Click to expand...

£8-57 month if you go on Serg Ramelli you get %20 off 12 mnths
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top