The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

tijuana taxi said:
Depends what lamps you have, some people have bulbs about as bright as a glow worms arse in the fog
Click to expand...

Some time it bright lamp sometime it dull lamp and the sony does still hunt
 
Jelster said:
When I bought the X-T2 I wanted to know if it could replace my 7D2 for wildlife. This was shot with the 100-400 and 1.4EX.

Crested Tit by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

This is JPG, straight from camera, just resized in PS. I have to say I'm quite pleased... I'll play with the RAW file when I have more time.
Click to expand...
Very nice Steve, have you owned the XF100-400mm lens long..? What do you think of it..?

I'm currently looking closely at one to add to my XF line-up.
 
macvisual said:
Very nice Steve, have you owned the XF100-400mm lens long..? What do you think of it..?

I'm currently looking closely at one to add to my XF line-up.
Click to expand...

I've currently got it on loan Peter, from LFH. I intend to replace my 7D2 & Sigma 150-600 Sport set up with the Fuji combo, but I wanted to test it first. It's just so much lighter than my existing wildlife kit, which I tried to use today but put back as it was just too heavy to handhold while chasing little birds like Tits...
 
Greggster said:
Blimey guys, I've only been off line for 2 weeks and I had 80 pages to catch up on [emoji849]
Click to expand...


So what's your excuse for going AWOL Gregg, It had better be good or well just have to put you on a fizz. :D:D

George.
 
tijuana taxi said:
Who needs the Northern Lights or St Elmos Fire with these new natural phenomena courtesy of Fuji
Click to expand...
Unfortunately funky bokeh's not limited to Fuji ;)
 
snerkler said:
Unfortunately funky bokeh's not limited to Fuji ;)
Click to expand...
True dat. To further complicate the issue, I have the issue that Chrome isn't using the ICC profile for my Spyder. It may be using the one for my monitor, not sure. The upshot is that whenever I upload a pic to any website (or indeed just open the image file in Chrome directly) it's notably darker than the same file in Photoshop, Lightroom, Irfanview, whatever. Viewing the same website in MS Edge it looks OK. On Googling this seems to be a known Chrome bug, one that Google can't be bothered to fix because it only affects graphics professionals and keen amateur togs. Sigh...
 
Anyway, here's a bit of magic from last night. I was struggling with the fading light on this riverbank on the south edge of Port Meadow, wondering about getting the tripod out, wondering whether the shot was really worth the effort, when these ghostly swans glided silently out of the gloom. There wan't much time to react, and in retrospect I should probably have upped the ISO from 640 where I had it. If I had a X-T1 with an ISO dial, things might have been different :-) But I bracketed a lot and managed to get the swans reasonably sharp in some underexposed shots, and then used the longer exposures with blurry swans to at least reduce the noise in the dark pics when I opened them up a little. I could have done better, no doubt, but at least I came away with a picture... :D


Ghost swans, Port Meadow by David Hallett, on Flickr
 
dave.hallett said:
True dat. To further complicate the issue, I have the issue that Chrome isn't using the ICC profile for my Spyder. It may be using the one for my monitor, not sure. The upshot is that whenever I upload a pic to any website (or indeed just open the image file in Chrome directly) it's notably darker than the same file in Photoshop, Lightroom, Irfanview, whatever. Viewing the same website in MS Edge it looks OK. On Googling this seems to be a known Chrome bug, one that Google can't be bothered to fix because it only affects graphics professionals and keen amateur togs. Sigh...
Click to expand...
Could you not change the screens settings rather than use a software option to change the screen? Some screens have great options for calibrations some sadly don't
 
Nuzik said:
Could you not change the screens settings rather than use a software option to change the screen? Some screens have great options for calibrations some sadly don't
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think it should be possible to adjust the monitor so that the brightness setting uncalibrated is closer to that calibrated. Right now I can't quite work out what I need to do, but I guess the answer is probably turn the brightness up a bit and recalibrate. My monitor is a Dell Ultrasharp 2209WA, so hardly state of the art. But I like the picture. :-) I just don't really understand why Chrome can't get something right that even a Microsoft browser (OMG!) can manage correctly.
 
dave.hallett said:
Yeah, I think it should be possible to adjust the monitor so that the brightness setting uncalibrated is closer to that calibrated. Right now I can't quite work out what I need to do, but I guess the answer is probably turn the brightness up a bit and recalibrate. My monitor is a Dell Ultrasharp 2209WA, so hardly state of the art. But I like the picture. :-) I just don't really understand why Chrome can't get something right that even a Microsoft browser (OMG!) can manage correctly.
Click to expand...
I do quite a bit of graphic and web site work as well. And IE tends to make images look s*** where as Chrome doesn't. Some become so bad I have to start again. It's an issue with all really.
 
dave.hallett said:
Anyway, here's a bit of magic from last night. I was struggling with the fading light on this riverbank on the south edge of Port Meadow, wondering about getting the tripod out, wondering whether the shot was really worth the effort, when these ghostly swans glided silently out of the gloom. There wan't much time to react, and in retrospect I should probably have upped the ISO from 640 where I had it. If I had a X-T1 with an ISO dial, things might have been different :-) But I bracketed a lot and managed to get the swans reasonably sharp in some underexposed shots, and then used the longer exposures with blurry swans to at least reduce the noise in the dark pics when I opened them up a little. I could have done better, no doubt, but at least I came away with a picture... :D


Ghost swans, Port Meadow by David Hallett, on Flickr
Click to expand...
I like it. Not every photo needs to be stretched to full dynamic range. I think the darkness adds to the composition. What matters is the lovely sky, a bit of balance from the reflections, and the surprisingly accurate ethereal glow that the swans give off in such light.

(also, I have iso as the top left option on my q menu so it is litterally one button press, then wheel it in ;))
 
Jelster said:
I've currently got it on loan Peter, from LFH. I intend to replace my 7D2 & Sigma 150-600 Sport set up with the Fuji combo, but I wanted to test it first. It's just so much lighter than my existing wildlife kit, which I tried to use today but put back as it was just too heavy to handhold while chasing little birds like Tits...
Click to expand...
I've heard/read it's got 5 stops OIS which seems amazing to be honest......! wOw

:)
 
sjh2008 said:
A couple from the Wyedean Rally, all taken with XT-2 and 55-200mm lens

ISO 6400



ISO 12800



ISO 2500



ISO 2500



ISO 2000



ISO 1600
Click to expand...
Some nice cars there like wot I used to navigate in my dim and distant past. Before I was wed. Sigh.
 
dave.hallett said:
Yeah, I think it should be possible to adjust the monitor so that the brightness setting uncalibrated is closer to that calibrated. Right now I can't quite work out what I need to do, but I guess the answer is probably turn the brightness up a bit and recalibrate. My monitor is a Dell Ultrasharp 2209WA, so hardly state of the art. But I like the picture. :) I just don't really understand why Chrome can't get something right that even a Microsoft browser (OMG!) can manage correctly.
Click to expand...
Doesn't your calibrator tell you what your monitor's luminance/brightness level should be?
 
sjh2008 said:
A couple from the Wyedean Rally, all taken with XT-2 and 55-200mm lens

ISO 6400



ISO 12800



ISO 2500



ISO 2500



ISO 2000



ISO 1600
Click to expand...
Love a good rally pic (y) I wish they still came through Chatsworth like they did in the good old Lombard RAC days.
 
Nuzik said:
I do quite a bit of graphic and web site work as well. And IE tends to make images look s*** where as Chrome doesn't. Some become so bad I have to start again. It's an issue with all really.
Click to expand...
Well, of course IE is rubbish. Always has been. That's why I was surprised to see Edge get it right!

snerkler said:
Doesn't your calibrator tell you what your monitor's luminance/brightness level should be?
Click to expand...
No. Or not that I've noticed. The Spyder4Express instructions just say to adjust your monitor brightness to a level you find comfortable. I think I've been trying to get it lower to make the difference with prints less pronounced. I seem to remember reading that there's some more sophisticated software available for free that can use the Spyder 4 sensor, although it's reputed to have quite a learning curve. Maybe I should look into it.
 
jimmyjamjojo said:
I like it. Not every photo needs to be stretched to full dynamic range. I think the darkness adds to the composition. What matters is the lovely sky, a bit of balance from the reflections, and the surprisingly accurate ethereal glow that the swans give off in such light.

(also, I have iso as the top left option on my q menu so it is litterally one button press, then wheel it in ;))
Click to expand...
Thanks! And yes, I have ISO on the front wheel, so I can't really blame the X-T10 for my lack of presence of mind! :-)
 
dave.hallett said:
Well, of course IE is rubbish. Always has been. That's why I was surprised to see Edge get it right!


No. Or not that I've noticed. The Spyder4Express instructions just say to adjust your monitor brightness to a level you find comfortable. I think I've been trying to get it lower to make the difference with prints less pronounced. I seem to remember reading that there's some more sophisticated software available for free that can use the Spyder 4 sensor, although it's reputed to have quite a learning curve. Maybe I should look into it.
Click to expand...
Ahh right. First time I properly calibrated my screen I was surprised just how dim it's supposed to be.
 
G.K.Jnr. said:
So what's your excuse for going AWOL Gregg, It had better be good or well just have to put you on a fizz. :D:D

George.
Click to expand...

Nothing sinister George, just got REALLY busy - sold the Mercedes which has been bankrupting me, bought a Volvo, bought a pipe and slippers [emoji38], work went crazy, and I'm having the front room insulated and plastered. All of my camera gear is in a cabinet which I've dust proofed with a roll of masking tape [emoji3]
 
Greggster said:
Nothing sinister George, just got REALLY busy - sold the Mercedes which has been bankrupting me, bought a Volvo, bought a pipe and slippers [emoji38], work went crazy, and I'm having the front room insulated and plastered. All of my camera gear is in a cabinet which I've dust proofed with a roll of masking tape [emoji3]
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with a Volvo.. although all I ever see is old men driving them... which one did you go for?
 
Has anyone seen the moon tonight yet? Disaster! Tried last night as well but there was still too much cloud to get a sharp shot. Looking through the EVF it looked OOF most of the time until parts of the cloud passed, revealing the real detail.

Anyway, here's one of the best of a bad bunch. Shot with the Canon FD 300/2.8L + 2x TC

DSCF5083.jpg
 
Last edited:
manualfocus-g said:
Has anyone seen the moon tonight yet? Disaster! Tried last night as well but there was still too much cloud to get a sharp shot. Looking through the EVF it looked OOF most of the time until parts of the cloud passed, revealing the real detail.

Anyway, here's one of the best of a bad bunch. Shot with the Canon FD 300/2.8L + 2x TC

View attachment 77444
Click to expand...

Yeah I've taken a few and posted one up over the sony thread. Was hard tonight with all the clouds keep flying past..
 
manualfocus-g said:
Has anyone seen the moon tonight yet? Disaster! Tried last night as well but there was still too much cloud to get a sharp shot. Looking through the EVF it looked OOF most of the time until parts of the cloud passed, revealing the real detail.

Anyway, here's one of the best of a bad bunch. Shot with the Canon FD 300/2.8L + 2x TC

View attachment 77444
Click to expand...
Saw it last night and was distinctly underwhelmed. Too much cloud tonight. Won't be staying up waiting for clear skies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top