The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

NDevon said:
Does anyone do any filming with an X-T2? Or even better use two of them and edit? I'm not talking about a bit of holiday filming, I'm interested in how you find them as a serious camcorder
Click to expand...

I did a short bit of 4K video while at Leighton Moss last month. I got home and couldn't believe how good the quality was. If I were going to do it properly I'd get a mic though.

This was the T2 and 100-400 combo. The frightening thing was that about 15 seconds of video was over 300MB!!
 
Cagey75 said:
Did you though? If the XT-1 was still the flagship, it would do the job. It did up until last year for many, inc pros. I need money more than the improvements :D I will maybe buy an XT-2 next year, used, once prices fall, and they will.
Click to expand...
Conversely, that's how I feel about the X-T10 vs the X-T1. If people feel it's worth the extra money for the X-T1, even though the pictures it takes are no different, why not the extra for the X-T2? At least you get more resolution...
 
Nuzik said:
I need everything I can get. If it says faster AF I need it. More MP I need it to help crop. It's all there for fail safes.
Click to expand...

I'm buying manual lenses atm, AF speeds mean naff all to me. You should worry less about extras and gimmicks maybe. More MP does nothing unless you love printing billboard size prints :D

dave.hallett said:
Conversely, that's how I feel about the X-T10 vs the X-T1. If people feel it's worth the extra money for the X-T1, even though the pictures it takes are no different, why not the extra for the X-T2? At least you get more resolution...
Click to expand...

I agree to your first point, An XT-10 would have been enough for me tbh, I just got a good deal on the XT-1, and I do like to have the extra controls on body. But I disagree strongly on the XT-2 jump. Because the price difference is a lot greater, and I honestly don't 'need' the extras it offers. The XT-1 is pretty much the same body/size and extra res, as I said, only matters really if you print large, or like to crop a lot.

The XT-10 came after the 1, as a more budget option, it was never a flagship. The XT-1 was. So it's not the same thing really.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
I'm buying manual lenses atm, AF speeds mean naff all to me. You should worry less about extras and gimmicks maybe. More MP does nothing unless you love printing billboard size prints :D



I agree! An XT-10 would have been enough for me tbh, I just got a good deal on the XT-1, and I do like to have the extra controls on body.
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily agree that you need to print billboard size to see a difference in sizes.
I used to have a 7mp camera that was fine for 7*5 I believe even billboards were printed on them. But I certainly print A3 a little and i like to have a good size image for that. Also if you have a good monitor as well you can see the difference in mp and get nice and close to PS stuff. Its my opinion and my reason I like to have more. Hell I'd buy a 50mp Sony if I thought the camera was any good.
 
Nuzik said:
I don't necessarily agree that you need to print billboard size to see a difference in sizes.
I used to have a 7mp camera that was fine for 7*5 I believe even billboards were printed on them. But I certainly print A3 a little and i like to have a good size image for that. Also if you have a good monitor as well you can see the difference in mp and get nice and close to PS stuff. Its my opinion and my reason I like to have more. Hell I'd buy a 50mp Sony if I thought the camera was any good.
Click to expand...

You are entitled to your opinion, but you're also quoting mine ;) I had a 36mp FX camera, i know the difference, it only matters when you view images 100%. The only people who actually do that, are other photographers.

Why don't you get a D800? It seems more your thing. They can be got for about £800 these days.
 
Cagey75 said:
More MP does nothing unless you love printing billboard size prints :D
Click to expand...

Agreed. I could still get great images out of a D1. What instead I've found is there is a difference between pixels and pixels. The IQ on my D700 for the kind of macro photography I do seems a step up from my X-T1 with less MPs. Admittedly it's early doors as I've shot with it for less than a week but so far I'm getting cleaner images and what I consider better files straight out of the camera.
 
I looked at some of my old D90 images recently and was a bit shocked, they look a bit .... er, crappy, toward my current XT-1 images. My D800E on the other hand, stomps all over the XT-1, IF I view them full size, which I tend not to really do outside processing. But the D800 stomps all over most dslr too
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
More MP does nothing unless you love printing billboard size prints :D
Click to expand...

Not entirely true. Also effective for noise reduction when shooting in low light, for example. But yes, most people have more megapixels than they actually need.

Cagey75 said:
I disagree strongly on the XT-2 jump. Because the price difference is a lot greater, and I honestly don't 'need' the extras it offers.

The XT-10 came after the 1, as a more budget option, it was never a flagship. The XT-1 was. So it's not the same thing really.
Click to expand...

Flagship, schmagship. Why should I care? :-) But this is really my point. Everyone has their own cut-off. Working pros should probably buy an XT-2. For everyone else, it's just where you draw the line...
 
dave.hallett said:
Not entirely true. Also effective for noise reduction when shooting in low light, for example. But yes, most people have more megapixels than they actually need.



Flagship, schmagship. Why should I care? :) But this is really my point. Everyone has their own cut-off. Working pros should probably buy an XT-2. For everyone else, it's just where you draw the line...
Click to expand...


You shouldn't, I'm just saying it was good enough to be the top of the heap before the 2 came along. I think people just make up reasons why they 'need' a lot of things tbh :D

If I had nothing else other than a bridge cam, I'd make it work, I have done before. So you're preaching to the wrong choir here :p

Let me reiterate a saying I posted here already:

The beginner thinks it's all about the camera
The enthusiast thinks it's all about the lens
The photographer knows it's all about the light.

I like to think I am the latter. People worry too much about gear. We go around in circles moaning and groaning about gear, but end of the day, when you actually go out and shoot, the lighting is the most important factor, and how you read and control it. Better ISO is a thing aye ... but I think once you go over 3200, maybe it's a shot for another day, unless it's a MUST at the time
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
You shouldn't, I'm just saying it was good enough to be the top of the heap before the 2 came along. I think people just make up reasons why they 'need' a lot of things tbh :D

If I had nothing else other than a bridge cam, I'd make it work, I have done before. So you're preaching to the wrong choir here [emoji14]

Let me reiterate a saying I posted here already:

The beginner thinks it's all about the camera
The enthusiast thinks it's all about the lens
The photographer knows it's all about the light.

I like to think I am the latter. People worry too much about gear. We go around in circles moaning and groaning about gear, but end of the day, when you actually go out and shoot, the lighting is the most important factor, and how you read and control it. Better ISO is a thing aye ... but I think once you go over 3200, maybe it's a shot for another day, unless it's a MUST at the time
Click to expand...
I went from a D750 I have contemplated the D810 or even the D4x.
I like the size of the Fuji and the lenses are lovely made.
 
Can anyone shed any lights on this..... is there a way to work out DOF from this crop to a FF?? I.e.
 
rookies said:
Can anyone shed any lights on this..... is there a way to work out DOF from this crop to a FF?? I.e.
Click to expand...

35mm (FX) 50 mm lens set to f/2 (25 mm aperture) gives H = 43m. If focussed to 2m the DoF is 1.911 to 2.097m (186mm).
APSc (DX) 35 mm lens set to f/1.4 (25 mm aperture) gives H = 46m. If focussed to 2m the DoF is 1.917 to 2.091m (174mm).
Four thirds 25 mm lens set to f/0.95 (26 mm aperture) gives H = 44m. If focussed to 2m the DoF is 1.913 to 2.095m (183mm).

A brief example, just google for more info, it's one of those hard to explain in a post type things :D
 
Last edited:
Jelster said:
I did a short bit of 4K video while at Leighton Moss last month. I got home and couldn't believe how good the quality was. If I were going to do it properly I'd get a mic though.

This was the T2 and 100-400 combo. The frightening thing was that about 15 seconds of video was over 300MB!!
Click to expand...

Good to hear, thank you. There are tons of articles and examples out there, but it's all a bit messy and hard to see an advert from an impartial article.

It does take a lot of storage, most of it I probably wouldn't film in 4K so that saves a chunk of space. Also I would be going straight from the sensor to an external field monitor and recorder, so the camera won't have to write any data and won't cut out at 29 minutes. Mocs will go into the recorders too, I wouldn't rely on camera mice, I'll be using lavaliers and a boom.

I'm not making an action movie, it's interviews and some real world stuff, my head and heart are saying the X-T2's but there's something niggling away that's saying I shouldn't just go with what I want it's what I need. I know some of the Lumix cameras are fantastic for video and especially at the price point, but I just don't like them and I don't think they are that good for still pictures. I also think the 5D IV would probably be a little better than the Fuji, but it's almost double the price and no way near twice as good. There gets a point with the quality that it doesn't really matter as they all do the job well, compare cameras today to where we were 10 years ago.

Thanks again :)
 
dave.hallett said:
Not bothered about diffraction *in the blurry bits* (!). So take one shot at the sweet spot of the lens (f/8ish most likely) for the bits you want sharp, and one at f/22 for the bits you want blurry, then blend in post...
Click to expand...
Ahh I see (y) Sounds like a lot of hard work to me :lol: ;)
 
dave.hallett said:
Conversely, that's how I feel about the X-T10 vs the X-T1. If people feel it's worth the extra money for the X-T1, even though the pictures it takes are no different, why not the extra for the X-T2? At least you get more resolution...
Click to expand...

The biggest difference (apart from controls/size) of the X-T1 over X-T10 (and X-E2, etc) is the size of the EVF, once you have used a the larger EVF for a short period there is no going back......IMO :exit:
 
Anyone order the X-T10 on Black Friday with the 18-55 lens? Have you actually received it yet? I'm still waiting for my delivery from ffords, stock not arrived in the U.K. Yet.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
The biggest difference (apart from controls/size) of the X-T1 over X-T10 (and X-E2, etc) is the size of the EVF, once you have used a the larger EVF for a short period there is no going back......IMO :exit:
Click to expand...
This was the deciding factor for me in the end. I liked the idea of the smaller t10 but the large evf won the day.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
The biggest difference (apart from controls/size) of the X-T1 over X-T10 (and X-E2, etc) is the size of the EVF, once you have used a the larger EVF for a short period there is no going back......IMO :exit:
Click to expand...

Yep, this is a deal breaker. I tried the teeny EVF in the X-E1 (same as X-T10) and I couldn't use it.
 
I'm glad I didn't try the X-T1 first then [emoji1] [emoji6]

In all seriousness, I find the X-T10's EVF just fine, though as you say it may be because I've not tried the larger one on the T1/T2.

The T10 does me just fine for now. Think I'll build up my lenses as I need (read 'want') first then upgrade the body next year or even the year after that.
 
snerkler said:
Ahh I see (y) Sounds like a lot of hard work to me :LOL: ;)
Click to expand...
Assuming you have a copy of PS. I could do it in under a minute, but to each their own ;)

Mr Perceptive said:
The biggest difference (apart from controls/size) of the X-T1 over X-T10 (and X-E2, etc) is the size of the EVF, once you have used a the larger EVF for a short period there is no going back......IMO :exit:
Click to expand...
So I've heard. For this reason, I have studiously avoided picking up an X-T1 :)
 
Nuzik said:
Was sticking with the Sony last i knew. He contacted me about mine stuff and then said he was sticking with the Sony!
Click to expand...

That has changed since lol as had a lot of failed tracking when I went to the park the other day with daughter
 
It deffo narrowed down to those 2. I just need to be able to try a xt2 with tracking.. another thing is when camera sleep how long does it take for it wake up
 
rookies said:
It deffo narrowed down to those 2. I just need to be able to try a xt2 with tracking.. another thing is when camera sleep how long does it take for it wake up
Click to expand...
i set mines alarm for 7am, it has a bowl of cornflakes and a cup of coffee its good until about 11pm when it goes to bed...
 
DSCF0460 by Robert Bell, on Flickr


Priorities Rufus decorating the tree Theo Eating mince pies

DSCF0479 by Robert Bell, on Flickr


PwULAJ
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top