The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

Cagey75 said:
Lovely image, that burst of red, would make a great print. We have to click through the link to see it though .
Click to expand...

Sorry it was the only way I could find to link it on my iPad.
Once I found subject I switched lens to mfd and just moved around until I got all three heads on one focal plane and left the background to do its own thing.
Bokeh isn't as good as my old 200mm f2.0 VR on FX but I am pleased with what I got and very impressed with iOS on it :)
 
Cagey75 said:
Oh, that's the other thing, I can't see a way to use bulb mode effectively using it? It seems to be limited to 30 sec
Click to expand...

I've just had a play, and frustratingly, it appears it's not possible with the remote app. You would have to use a cable, or manually hold the shutter release button. Opportunity to make a request for an update to the camera App?

There is no bulb functionality in Camera Remote, so your maximum exposure time is 30 seconds. If you need more, better use a conventional (tethered or wireless) remote control.
Click to expand...
Quote above from - http://www.fujirumors.com/new-firmware-features-2-using-camera-remote/

I note that the app doesn’t support bracketing or continuous shooting either and won't work even if they are set on the camera.

I was hoping I could do away with a shutter release cable. Apparently not. Perhaps a simple cable attached to phone is the least amount "extra kit" required. Something like - http://triggertrap.com/products/triggertrap-mobile/
 
Last edited:
souldeep said:
I've just had a play, and frustratingly, it appears it's not possible with the remote app. You would have to use a cable, or manually hold the shutter release button. Opportunity to make a request for an update to the camera App?


Quote above from - http://www.fujirumors.com/new-firmware-features-2-using-camera-remote/

I note that the app doesn’t support bracketing or continuous shooting either and won't work even if they are set on the camera.

I was hoping I could do away with a shutter release cable. Apparently not. Perhaps a simple cable attached to phone is the least amount "extra kit" required. Something like - http://triggertrap.com/products/triggertrap-mobile/
Click to expand...

I played with the app for five minutes, and went back to using my el cheapo cable release
 
Well seeing as I'm still lensless, here's a shot from earlier in the year that has probably become one of my faves of 2016 out of all my photo's...

159bfc966d8c0bcf3b60367a11213261


https://500px.com/photo/172785533/on-the-cobb-by-ash-smith
 
dave.hallett said:
Thanks Terry. But I'm not seeing what you're seeing. Can you explain a bit more? Which way are you assuming it was stitched, for one thing?

The moon is shining through thin clouds, if that helps. I'm seeing a bit of a glow around the buildings, but that may actually be real. Don't have LR open at the moment.

Apparently uneven sharpness may also be due to shooting at about f/2. Or are you seeing camera shake in one part but not another?
Click to expand...


You said in your preamble that it was a stitch of two images. The left side shows less focus than the right side at equivalent distances.

On my screen there is also distinct regular banding on and in the area of the moon.

Your exif data also confirms it is a merged panorama.
 
Last edited:
Was wondering does the back focus button is slower compare to half press the shutter? Took my camera out yesterday for my baby girl first birthday and I tried to capture her. Half pressing the shutter seems to focus faster then the back button focus. My camera is XT1 and the lens is 35mm f2. I also did not turn on the high performance mode.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
You said in your preamble that it was a stitch of two images. The left side shows less focus than the right side at equivalent distances.

On my screen there is also distinct regular banding on and in the area of the moon.

Your exif data also confirms it is a merged panorama.
Click to expand...

Indeed. But contrary to usual practice, it wasn't stitched left to right. For the simple reason that movement was confined to the lower half of the picture :-).

Are you sure the banding isn't just the clouds? You can see the wispiness of them quite clearly around the edges of the moon.
 
dave.hallett said:
Indeed. But contrary to usual practice, it wasn't stitched left to right. For the simple reason that movement was confined to the lower half of the picture :).

Are you sure the banding isn't just the clouds? You can see the wispiness of them quite clearly around the edges of the moon.
Click to expand...

Of course it is possible that it is the clouds ,but they seem too hard edged and regular somehow. I have had a
look at the shot in photoshop, so that I could examine it at different curves. And I still can not make up my mind.
if you merged two shots I take it that you used masks to choose what came from which.. some areas definately seem less sharp than others, perhaps this was a function of the blending. All that being said it is still an effective shot.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Of course it is possible that it is the clouds ,but they seem too hard edged and regular somehow. I have had a
look at the shot in photoshop, so that I could examine it at different curves. And I still can not make up my mind.
if you merged two shots I take it that you used masks to choose what came from which.. some areas definately seem less sharp than others, perhaps this was a function of the blending. All that being said it is still an effective shot.
Click to expand...
Thanks Terry! I actually did the merge in LR, and I don't know how LR does it under the covers, unlike PS where you can "see the working". I think it's a different algorithm though, because I've had panos that LR won't stitch successfully but PS will and v.v. These days I tend to go with LR for the first try (because it's quick, merges to RAW and is usually OK), then Autopano Pro for tricky cases, or if all else fails, try PS! This one seemed to go OK. I can see what you mean about the different sharpness (decentering?), but this is really the worst possible picture to test it on. I will investigate further under better controlled conditions...
 
dave.hallett said:
Thanks Terry! I actually did the merge in LR, and I don't know how LR does it under the covers, unlike PS where you can "see the working". I think it's a different algorithm though, because I've had panos that LR won't stitch successfully but PS will and v.v. These days I tend to go with LR for the first try (because it's quick, merges to RAW and is usually OK), then Autopano Pro for tricky cases, or if all else fails, try PS! This one seemed to go OK. I can see what you mean about the different sharpness (decentering?), but this is really the worst possible picture to test it on. I will investigate further under better controlled conditions...
Click to expand...

I do not think this is a lens problem. During the blend pixels only need to be a minute bit out and you can lose sharpness.
I blend with my stitching program PTAssembler as you can mask very easily and to your own choice. then use smartblend to do the final blending.
I find lightroom and photoshop very blunt tools when it comes to stitching and blending.
 
Cagey75 said:
What do you plan to get if it sells?

I doubt I'll buy any pricey lenses for a while yet. I'll wait and see what happens next year, fancy that 80mm macro
Click to expand...

It's a great lens but I'm missing my 23 1.4 and 56 1.2 primes and may pick up an 18-55 for general walkabout.
 
Thunderbird010 said:
It's a great lens but I'm missing my 23 1.4 and 56 1.2 primes and may pick up an 18-55 for general walkabout.
Click to expand...

I'm all about primes, have been for a long time now that I think on it. Had the 55-200 when i first got the Fuji, and I do like that one, but I'm more comfortable with primes. With zooms I always end up just using them either the widest or the longest end, rarely in between. I don't like faffing about zooming in and out, I like it simple. And zoom with the feet when needed.

I think even cheaper basic primes will always out perform much pricier zooms in terms of image quality, sharpness and clarity. They're usually faster for a lot cheaper too.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
I'm all about primes, have been for a long time now that I think on it. Had the 55-200 when i first got the Fuji, and I do like that one, but I'm more comfortable with primes. With zooms I always end up just using them either the widest or the longest end, rarely in between. I don't like faffing about zooming in and out, I like it simple. And zoom with the feet when needed.

I think even cheaper basic primes will always out perform much pricier zooms in terms of image quality, sharpness and clarity. They're usually faster for a lot cheaper too.
Click to expand...
I don't think there's a lot of difference in IQ between a good zoom and an average prime TBH, except of course the differences afforded by the wider apertures. In fact in terms of sharpness I'd say my 18-55 is better than my 35mm f1.4 although on saying that I've not done side by side comparisons.
 
Cagey75 said:
I'm all about primes, have been for a long time now that I think on it. Had the 55-200 when i first got the Fuji, and I do like that one
Click to expand...
I'm new to Fuji and so far have the 18-55 and 35mm f2. I was going to get the 56mm but I'm reading up on the 55-200mm and it sounds excellent. I had a Sony 70-200 f4 that I enjoyed using and I'm thinking this may be almost as good?
 
snerkler said:
I don't think there's a lot of difference in IQ between a good zoom and an average prime TBH, except of course the differences afforded by the wider apertures. In fact in terms of sharpness I'd say my 18-55 is better than my 35mm f1.4 although on saying that I've not done side by side comparisons.
Click to expand...
Interesting that you talk about the sharpness of the 18-55 I was playing around with it last night and in good light I was very impressed with the detail / sharpness.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I do not think this is a lens problem. During the blend pixels only need to be a minute bit out and you can lose sharpness.
I blend with my stitching program PTAssembler as you can mask very easily and to your own choice. then use smartblend to do the final blending.
I find lightroom and photoshop very blunt tools when it comes to stitching and blending.
Click to expand...
Yes, interesting point. But I think I can see this effect in the individual shots before stitching, which is why I plan to investigate further...as I say though, this is about the worst possible shot for trying to judge anything subtle!
 
snerkler said:
I don't think there's a lot of difference in IQ between a good zoom and an average prime TBH, except of course the differences afforded by the wider apertures. In fact in terms of sharpness I'd say my 18-55 is better than my 35mm f1.4 although on saying that I've not done side by side comparisons.
Click to expand...


I almost always notice an increase in sharpness and generally get a more pleasing image from a prime. For example, the Sigma 35 1.4, for me, produced a nicer image than the Nikon 24-70 2.8 I bought it to replace. Try a direct comparison between your 35 1.4 and the zoom at F4, I would bet on the prime. But the Fuji 18-55 is apparently exceptional, so wouldn't be surprised if it was very close. I'd still rather have 1.4 and move about a bit more though.


Iiyama said:
I'm new to Fuji and so far have the 18-55 and 35mm f2. I was going to get the 56mm but I'm reading up on the 55-200mm and it sounds excellent. I had a Sony 70-200 f4 that I enjoyed using and I'm thinking this may be almost as good?
Click to expand...

The 55-200 is very good indeed. It's sharp enough, has decent wide aperture range [3.5 - 4.8] and the OIS is insanely good. I was able to get sharp images hand held at 1/8th second, 200mm. That is impressive. I may even buy it again some time if I get a nice deal on a used one.
 
Cagey75 said:
I almost always notice an increase in sharpness and generally get a more pleasing image from a prime. For example, the Sigma 35 1.4, for me, produced a nicer image than the Nikon 24-70 2.8 I bought it to replace. Try a direct comparison between your 35 1.4 and the zoom at F4, I would bet on the prime. But the Fuji 18-55 is apparently exceptional, so wouldn't be surprised if it was very close. I'd still rather have 1.4 and move about a bit more though.




The 55-200 is very good indeed. It's sharp enough, has decent wide aperture range [3.5 - 4.8] and the OIS is insanely good. I was able to get sharp images hand held at 1/8th second, 200mm. That is impressive. I may even buy it again some time if I get a nice deal on a used one.
Click to expand...
The 55-200 might be the final piece of the lens jigsaw or I may not get the 18-55 and pick up the 18-135 instead.
 
Cagey75 said:
I almost always notice an increase in sharpness and generally get a more pleasing image from a prime. For example, the Sigma 35 1.4, for me, produced a nicer image than the Nikon 24-70 2.8 I bought it to replace. Try a direct comparison between your 35 1.4 and the zoom at F4, I would bet on the prime. But the Fuji 18-55 is apparently exceptional, so wouldn't be surprised if it was very close. I'd still rather have 1.4 and move about a bit more though.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that primes aren't better, but it depends on what primes you're comparing to what zooms. The Sigma 35mm art is one of the best 35mm's so it's no surprise that it's better than the 24-70mm. But take the 50mm f1.8 for example, pretty wide open in which case my 24-70mm and 24-120mm were sharper wide open. At around f4-f5.6 the 50mm was blindingly sharp though, and sharper than either zoom.
 
snerkler said:
I don't think there's a lot of difference in IQ between a good zoom and an average prime TBH, except of course the differences afforded by the wider apertures. In fact in terms of sharpness I'd say my 18-55 is better than my 35mm f1.4 although on saying that I've not done side by side comparisons.
Click to expand...
Its better than my 27mm too.
 
rjbell said:
Its better than my 27mm too.
Click to expand...

I would honestly send your copy back, sounds like you're not satisfied with it at all :(

Even if it costs you a few bob to return it, put the money toward something you'll enjoy using. Or it'll irritate you every time you see it in the bag. Nothing worse. I'd had bad copies in the past, I had a right nightmare with a lens that cost me €1100 and I left it too late. Ended up stuck with it as the issues only got worse after the warranty ran out, I also lost the receipt.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
I would honestly send your copy back, sounds like you're not satisfied with it at all :(

Even if it costs you a few bob to return it, put the money toward something you'll enjoy using. Or it'll irritate you every time you see it in the bag. Nothing worse. I'd had bad copies in the past, I had a right nightmare with a lens that cost me €1100 and I left it too late. Ended up stuck with it as the issues only got worse after the warranty ran out, I also lost the receipt.
Click to expand...
I've been doing some more comparison shots and i would say its on a par with the 18-55 but with less contrast. I can't decide if i'm just disappointed because the 18-55 is so good. I can't be bothered sending it back this time of year. Its easier and cheaper selling it on gumtree after giving it a good trial. But yeah i don't think i'll keep this copy.
 
Last edited:
Can anyone please recommend which setting for IS mode on the XT-10.
For general use and portraits.
 
Peter123 said:
Can anyone please recommend which setting for IS mode on the XT-10.
For general use and portraits.
Click to expand...

This only works with a OIS Lens
I tend to use default
menu Red 5
2nd Row ois 1
When you remove a ois lens it automatically turns off in the menu
 
Three stages of a poppy's life. by Philip Higgins, on Flickr
Cagey75 said:
Lovely image, that burst of red, would make a great print. We have to click through the link to see it though .



I had the 2.8D version for my Nikon a few years back. The one thing I didn't like was the AF noise, as a manual focus lens it would be great though, I imagine. Would get one myself, as I have an adapter already, if I could find a really good price.
Click to expand...


The Nikon 60mm has a beautiful mf feel to it even on a Fuji X with mount adapter
 
Last edited:
Just wanted to check which third party battery brand do you guys use for your XT1? or do you all go for OEM battery?
 
Got a number of different batteries and in all fairness Ive not found a lot of difference !
But that might not be the case now I have a X T2 time will tell :)
Saying that all my EX Pro batteries have been put in the bag with my XT2 for now but Im hoping to get a couple of new Fuji S type batteries soon :fuji:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top