The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

Bought the 16-55 on Friday and had a chance to play with it, and the 50-140 on Sunday. The pair of them are bitingly sharp - I'll even thrown in a millennial OMG in there - I was using a tripod, but wasn't prepared for how much detail I was going to see in the end result. Never saw such clarity, sharpness and contrast in my 24-70L on my Canon. I have a 10-24 on order from Digital Depot, and the wife got the call today to say it's on back order. Got to decide what to do. I already have the 12mm Zeiss Touit, and having seen how sharp the two zooms are, I'm thinking I might just save the cash on the 10-24 and let it go. I'd only really be using for 10-15mm in any case, in which case the 12mm prime will suffice for that Use Case, and requires no more of a lens change than 16-55 to 10-24 would. I am expecting a 16mm 1.4 today as well, and am struggling now to justify that given how good the 16-55 is. For sure at f1.4, 1.8, 2.0, the prime will outclass it, but I've never had a sharper zoom. My 3 week old, used twice 18-55 will be up for sale too - I can't justify keeping that and the 16-55, even for the OIS - as good as it is, I can't see me picking it over the 16-55, which is already my new precious. Fuji know how to make a good lens.
 
I'm on a phone granted but all I'm seeing in the comparison is different exposure, different dof and different processing.
 
Well I've clicked buy now on a X-T10 from WEX @ £269 with the double cash back :banana:
Wonder if I get on with it been a Canon user for the last 32yrs :eek:
 
Nuzik said:
It's because of that, was showing the beauty of it, ive not sold it yet!
Click to expand...
I know you haven't sold it yet but you want too. Perhaps a more scientific comparisons would put your mind at rest.
 
Last edited:
rjbell said:
I'm on a phone granted but all I'm seeing in the comparison is different exposure, different dof and different processing.
Click to expand...
If you're talking about the Leica comparison to be fair there's a marked difference. However, I do feel that some of this is down to technique (sorry Neil ;))
 
snerkler said:
If you're talking about the Leica comparison to be fair there's a marked difference. However, I do feel that some of this is down to technique (sorry Neil ;))
Click to expand...
Actually Toby it's not :)
I've used loads of different settings and for some uses its not brilliant. Don't get me wrong timer mode and landscapes is lovely but it's hardly working hard. Maybe it's the 56mm maybe I am used to DSLR and that's what I want who knows.
I've looked over my flickr to look at the shots I've selected and they aren't bad there are just too many throw away shots.
 
snerkler said:
If you're talking about the Leica comparison to be fair there's a marked difference. However, I do feel that some of this is down to technique (sorry Neil ;))
Click to expand...
Yeah I can see a difference but I can also see loads of viables.
 
With my d750 I'd have a success rate of well over 70% focus no qualms or issues at all. With this I'm well down to 20%. Now some of that is me shooting wide open and me moving others is just poor.
Its a nice camera to feel and use but is it a replacement for a fail safe camera no. The 56mm struggles unlike the 85mm of the Nikon. The 18mm is lovely and I like a wider lens the 24mm I had for my Nikon was nice as well
 
Nuzik said:
With my d750 I'd have a success rate of well over 70% focus no qualms or issues at all. With this I'm well down to 20%. Now some of that is me shooting wide open and me moving others is just poor.
Its a nice camera to feel and use but is it a replacement for a fail safe camera no. The 56mm struggles unlike the 85mm of the Nikon. The 18mm is lovely and I like a wider lens the 24mm I had for my Nikon was nice as well
Click to expand...

You keep mentioning the low hit rate you are getting, and as I've said before something isn't right. I use the 56mm shooting my daughter doing what kids do, and rarely have an issue even wide open which is pretty much how it is always set. Are you always using continuous AF? That's the only time I've seen the hit rate drop but nowhere near 20%.
 
The only real difference I see in your comparison is one shot was sharper because it was stopped down. You would have got a much closer match if you stopped the 56 down. So it shows nothing really. Only maybe that a Fuji cam with lens at a fraction of the cost can easily match a Leica.
 
The SL is medium format so f4 is actually quite fast. Having the Fuji at f4 wouldn't really be a worthwhile comparison, apart from seeing how much better medium format is than a 1.5x crop again :D
 
It would be a much fairer comparison because the fuji image would be a lot sharper than at 1.2. As is, the bokeh is nicer on the Fuji image, are we saying it doesn't matter on that because it was wider open?
 
jj_glos said:
The SL is medium format so f4 is actually quite fast. Having the Fuji at f4 wouldn't really be a worthwhile comparison, apart from seeing how much better medium format is than a 1.5x crop again :D
Click to expand...

The SL is full frame, and it's also F3 not F4 ~ 110mm

See here exif

L1020193 by dancook1982, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
I wasn't trying to show how good the Fuji was or how good the Leica is. I was showing bokeh and sone quick reference pics.
I barely shoot in AFC ask Snerks I'm a S
 
Nuzik said:
With my d750 I'd have a success rate of well over 70% focus no qualms or issues at all. With this I'm well down to 20%. Now some of that is me shooting wide open and me moving others is just poor.
Its a nice camera to feel and use but is it a replacement for a fail safe camera no. The 56mm struggles unlike the 85mm of the Nikon. The 18mm is lovely and I like a wider lens the 24mm I had for my Nikon was nice as well
Click to expand...

Worth you posting some of your failures - if 80% are failures, something is a long long way from normal.
 
Nuzik said:
Actually Toby it's not :)
I've used loads of different settings and for some uses its not brilliant. Don't get me wrong timer mode and landscapes is lovely but it's hardly working hard. Maybe it's the 56mm maybe I am used to DSLR and that's what I want who knows.
I've looked over my flickr to look at the shots I've selected and they aren't bad there are just too many throw away shots.
Click to expand...
I meant the comparison shot Neil, not the camera etc overall ;) There's clearly a marked difference between the Leica and the Fuji shots in terms of quality, but there are some technique elements going on. Getting exposure right for a start can enhance detail and clarity, not just trying to 'fix it' in post ;)

But I agree with you, I don't personally think the overall your shots with the XT2 are as good as those you were getting with the D750. I wouldn't like to say why that is though. That's not to say your Fuji shots are bad in any way, they're not, they're very nice.
 
snerkler said:
I meant the comparison shot Neil, not the camera etc overall ;) There's clearly a marked difference between the Leica and the Fuji shots in terms of quality, but there are some technique elements going on. Getting exposure right for a start can enhance detail and clarity, not just trying to 'fix it' in post ;)

But I agree with you, I don't personally think the overall your shots with the XT2 are as good as those you were getting with the D750. I wouldn't like to say why that is though. That's not to say your Fuji shots are bad in any way, they're not, they're very nice.
Click to expand...
To late you already hurt my feelings :(
 
Very interesting...thanks for posting your first impressions. I'd be interested to see a comparison with the 18-55 at the same f stops (2.8, 4, 5.6, 8) of the same subject.

I have the 18-55 and it's always performed well, and I wonder if it's sample variation with the 16-55 (and 18-55)?

Simes123 said:
Bought the 16-55 on Friday and had a chance to play with it, and the 50-140 on Sunday. The pair of them are bitingly sharp - I'll even thrown in a millennial OMG in there - I was using a tripod, but wasn't prepared for how much detail I was going to see in the end result. Never saw such clarity, sharpness and contrast in my 24-70L on my Canon. I have a 10-24 on order from Digital Depot, and the wife got the call today to say it's on back order. Got to decide what to do. I already have the 12mm Zeiss Touit, and having seen how sharp the two zooms are, I'm thinking I might just save the cash on the 10-24 and let it go. I'd only really be using for 10-15mm in any case, in which case the 12mm prime will suffice for that Use Case, and requires no more of a lens change than 16-55 to 10-24 would. I am expecting a 16mm 1.4 today as well, and am struggling now to justify that given how good the 16-55 is. For sure at f1.4, 1.8, 2.0, the prime will outclass it, but I've never had a sharper zoom. My 3 week old, used twice 18-55 will be up for sale too - I can't justify keeping that and the 16-55, even for the OIS - as good as it is, I can't see me picking it over the 16-55, which is already my new precious. Fuji know how to make a good lens.
Click to expand...
 
dancook said:
The SL is full frame, and it's also F3 not F4 ~ 110mm

See here exif

L1020193 by dancook1982, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Is that wide open at 110mm?

Simes123 said:
Worth you posting some of your failures - if 80% are failures, something is a long long way from normal.
Click to expand...
I agree, 80% failures is very high and not normal. I think it's partly getting used to a new system, partly due to Neil being extremely critical, and I've questioned before whether the camera/lens is behaving properly. 80% failure with the XT1 wouldn't be normal, let alone the XT2.
 
snerkler said:
OK so I've watched this properly now, and I take this review with an even bigger pinch of salt than I did before. I'm still not convinced by the D500 side to side tracking. If I can get 99% with my D750 I'm sure you can with the D500. Next thing is he's comparing high ISO but with jpeg. Tells me very little about the noise performance, all it tells me is that Fuji applies far more NR as can be seen by the softening and artefacts. Next thing is the images comparing sharpness at different ISO on the models and how he shows the Fuji is sharper. No s*** sherlock as he's missed focus on the D500 IMO (In fact initially I thought it looked like he'd added blur in PS for the 3200 ISO test ;)). Maybe he needs to calibrate the AF fine tune (One of the big downfalls of DSLR).

Now I'm not disputing that they are both stunning cameras, and every review you see show how great the XT2 is, especially the AF system. All I'm trying to point out is that we have to be careful when looking at reviews etc online. I'm sure there will be people that make their choices based purely on reviews like this :eek: However, neither am I saying that my comments are right, or right for everyone. I just think that it's important to question the integrity of reviews (y)

What is interesting is that of the 13 pictures I preferred, 9 were from the XT2 and 4 from the D500. Of course, I've questioned the integrity of the other tests so I'd have to question this too, but certainly interesting.
Click to expand...

Coming from a D500 I think that the AF is a lot better with fast moving subjects than my XT2, the intial lock espically on the D500 is a lot faster than the XT2, but then there is no need to auto fine tune lenses with the Fuji.
 
Last edited:
yamahatdm900 said:
Coming from a D500 I think that the AF is a lot better with fart moving subjects than my XT2, the intial lock espically on the D500 is a lot faster than the XT2, but then there is no need to auto fine tune lenses with the Fuji.
Click to expand...
Interesting, thanks. It's the initial lock on that's key for some of my shooting. Do you think this is more camera, lens, or a combination of both? I know there's a marked difference between my D750 withe the 70-200mm VRII or 24-70mm compared to the 24-120mm for example.
 
what hand straps you guys using on the X-T10 ?
 
snerkler said:
Interesting, thanks. It's the initial lock on that's key for some of my shooting. Do you think this is more camera, lens, or a combination of both? I know there's a marked difference between my D750 withe the 70-200mm VRII or 24-70mm compared to the 24-120mm for example.
Click to expand...
I used a D810 alone side the D500 for a while and found the AF on the D500 to be a lot faster to lock than the D810 with the same lens. But saying that I'm only comparing them when shooting BSB for the rest of my shooting intially lock on dosent really
 
yamahatdm900 said:
I used a D810 alone side the D500 for a while and found the AF on the D500 to be a lot faster to lock than the D810 with the same lens. But saying that I'm only comparing them when shooting BSB for the rest of my shooting intially lock on dosent really
Click to expand...
So you think the D500 as a whole is better to lock on than the XT2 then?
 
snerkler said:
So you think the D500 as a whole is better to lock on than the XT2 then?
Click to expand...

Better as in faster imho without a doubt. The XT2 is capable in shooting BSB without a doubt, the D500 for me really shows it's worth in those moments when at a track you have a split second to focus on a bike coming into view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top