The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

BacktotheFuji said:
Personally, I'm hooked on Fuji glass which is fit for purpose and generally of a good size.
Click to expand...


IMHO, the Fuji glass is as good optically as anything out there comparing lens to lens and equivalent FL to FL.(y)

George.
 
Anybody know if Lightroom Mobile (iOS) supports Fuji XT-2 lens corrections and the Fuji film simulation modes?

Thinking about going down this route for the majority of my post processing and trying to use SOOC JPEG files.
Going to shoot RAW+JPEG just in case I need more latitude with RAW's.

The main problem I seem to have is time for post processing.
 
rjbell said:
Just got back from a walk down the beach and ever camera but one I saw was a Fuji x series! I couldn't believe it.
Click to expand...

This is echoed with my local dealership taking in all kinds of DSLR systems including Sony A7 series stuff towards the XT-2.

Seems to have gone down well :)
 
Fuguru said:
This is echoed with my local dealership taking in all kinds of DSLR systems including Sony A7 series stuff towards the XT-2.

Seems to have gone down well :)
Click to expand...
Yep, i did just that sold all my Sony gear and moved to XT2 and so far very happy.
 
Iiyama said:
Yep, i did just that sold all my Sony gear and moved to XT2 and so far very happy.
Click to expand...


I'm sure you've made the right decision and you'll not be disappointed.(y)

George.
 
G.K.Jnr. said:
I'm sure you've made the right decision and you'll not be disappointed.(y)

George.
Click to expand...

Fuguru said:
Me too, just got my final G Masters to sell off then that's all my Sony gear gone.
Click to expand...

Ive not had the chance to get out much since i got it and added a few lenses. But the ones ive taken over Christmas im happier already than the ones I took with my A7ii.
 
G.K.Jnr. said:
IMHO, the Fuji glass is as good optically as anything out there comparing lens to lens and equivalent FL to FL.(y)

George.
Click to expand...

Isn't that another way of saying the fuji lenses are the (perhaps equally) best there is and nothing can better them, when comparing lens of the same focal length.

So the fuji 50mm equivalent is optically just as good as the otus, for example.
 
BacktotheFuji said:
Even better, looks like a normal silver x-t2 (?) and graphite X pro 2? Plus a graphite 23/2 wr :)
Click to expand...
The link does differentiate as 'silver' XT2 and 'graphite' X-Pro 2, but the XT2 looks the same colour as my GSE XT1.
 
dancook said:
Isn't that another way of saying the fuji lenses are the (perhaps equally) best there is and nothing can better them, when comparing lens of the same focal length.

So the fuji 50mm equivalent is optically just as good as the otus, for example.
Click to expand...

The Otus is a 55mm lens, so there is no like for like equivalent ;)
 
dancook said:
Isn't that another way of saying the fuji lenses are the (perhaps equally) best there is and nothing can better them, when comparing lens of the same focal length.

So the fuji 50mm equivalent is optically just as good as the otus, for example.
Click to expand...

Made me lol. I can just see the little Fuji 35mm f1.4 sat next to the Otus...

It does stand up surprisingly well against my old Sigmalux 50, but that's hardly cutting edge :D
 
The little Fuji would not be shamed by the fat, over priced Otus in any way end result wise. You most certainly wouldn't be seeing 10 times better results.

I've seen some reviewers state that the humble little Fuji 35 F2 is one of the sharpest lenses they have ever used. There's a guy who pits it directly against Nikon's better lenses inc the 50 1.2, and it's a bit shocking. Ok, Nikon 50mm lenses are not the Otus, but I guarantee a blind image test at F2 and up, you'd be hard pressed to tell much difference.
 
Last edited:
It is recognised that Fuji lens coating is the best there is. As far as the lens actual practical results go, I rather doubt anyone could tell any of the best lenses apart from one another.
The Fugi entry level lenses seem to sit well above the offerings from other brands.
 
imattersuk said:
Never really considered the 90mm for this type of shot but it just happened to be on the camera when I walked into the park with the intention of grabbing some portrait shots of my dog.

Park_1 by ImageMaker, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Pretty much a mid tele range on a cropped sensor. Looks a lovely lens, would love to have one.
 
I would say only two things about top-quality lenses: very few photographers have the technique to make the differences between them signify anything in practice, and unless you need a specialised tool for a particular job, the differences rapidly blur into questions of taste - whether you like this or that kind of bokeh, whether you value saturation and micro-contrast over brute resolving power, etc. I think it's uncontroversial to say that in most situations, Fuji lenses are more than good enough for most photographers. If you have the chops to actually get the most out of a Leica 50mm, more power to you. For my part, I've been considering buying a C/Y or QBM 50mm Zeiss Planar 1.4, but I hesitate to do so, because I have a feeling that in the low light, high ISO situations where I currently use my SMC Pentax 1.4, they will actually be indistinguishable, particularly when combined with a focal reducer.
 
dave.hallett said:
I would say only two things about top-quality lenses: very few photographers have the technique to make the differences between them signify anything in practice, and unless you need a specialised tool for a particular job, the differences rapidly blur into questions of taste - whether you like this or that kind of bokeh, whether you value saturation and micro-contrast over brute resolving power, etc. I think it's uncontroversial to say that in most situations, Fuji lenses are more than good enough for most photographers. If you have the chops to actually get the most out of a Leica 50mm, more power to you. For my part, I've been considering buying a C/Y or QBM 50mm Zeiss Planar 1.4, but I hesitate to do so, because I have a feeling that in the low light, high ISO situations where I currently use my SMC Pentax 1.4, they will actually be indistinguishable, particularly when combined with a focal reducer.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I completely agree with this as I can tell a difference in sharpness across my lenses most of the time. But also as you say, some of the price is bokeh, micro contrast etc. The issue for me is you get to a point and you pay a hell of a lot more money for very little improvement.
 
snerkler said:
I'm not sure I completely agree with this as I can tell a difference in sharpness across my lenses most of the time. But also as you say, some of the price is bokeh, micro contrast etc. The issue for me is you get to a point and you pay a hell of a lot more money for very little improvement.
Click to expand...


Is that not because you know which lens shot what though? Could you blind test tell the difference, same aperture, same subject, lighting etc
 
I think the placebo effect in photography is more powerful than people realise, because we overestimate the objectivity of our perceptual systems. There are so many times I've been doing nothing in Photoshop because I picked black to be drawing on a mask instead of white, or v.v., but convinced myself I could see a subtle effect... :-) There are people out there who are perfectly sure they can hear the difference between speaker cables of different thicknesses, which is manifestly absurd...but vision is not all that different from hearing.
 
I've seen someone claim an image comparison of two lenses looked the same, one image wasn't even in focus properly. If they missed that, how could they even hope to find the subtleties..

People compare difference in lens bokeh all the time, whilst some people will just claim it's all the same.

No sensible discussion can be had.
 
Cagey75 said:
Is that not because you know which lens shot what though? Could you blind test tell the difference, same aperture, same subject, lighting etc
Click to expand...
Possibly, although I'd be pretty sure I'd see a difference although maybe not say which is which, just which I find sharper. This won't be true for all lenses of course, but for example I can sure see a difference between my 70-200 and 24-120 at the same FL and aperture. Similarly I can see a difference between my 18-35mm and 24-120mm. I could see no discernible difference between my 24-120mm and 24-70mm f2.8 though in terms of sharpness.

However, as we know technique and light play a huge point and I'm sure you'd find the odd shot taken with my 24-120 that's sharper than my 70-200 for this reason.

And I don't for one second think it's placebo or anything else like that TBH, I'd love to sell all my expensive heavy lenses in favour of cheap light ones, but the truth is my expensive lenses are better. I appreciate that we all see things differently though, but we shouldn't just assume that just because we can't see a difference then the people who say they can are just kidding themselves. My wife still can't see the difference between SD and HD TV half the time yet it's blatantly obvious to me.
 
dave.hallett said:
I think the placebo effect in photography is more powerful than people realise, because we overestimate the objectivity of our perceptual systems. There are so many times I've been doing nothing in Photoshop because I picked black to be drawing on a mask instead of white, or v.v., but convinced myself I could see a subtle effect... :) There are people out there who are perfectly sure they can hear the difference between speaker cables of different thicknesses, which is manifestly absurd...but vision is not all that different from hearing.
Click to expand...
Just because you can't see or hear something doesn't mean others can't. I do agree some claims are a bit absurd, but then I've seen some pretty extreme things when it comes to the human body.
 
dancook said:
I've seen someone claim an image comparison of two lenses looked the same, one image wasn't even in focus properly. If they missed that, how could they even hope to find the subtleties..

People compare difference in lens bokeh all the time, whilst some people will just claim it's all the same.

No sensible discussion can be had.
Click to expand...
This might seem odd, but agree with this too! Differences in focusing bedevil attempted comparisons between fast lenses.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying these differences don't exist. Many of them are quite measurable, unlike the speaker cables. I'm saying that in the moment, we are too confident about our own perceptions and can easily see what we expect to see rather than what is there.
 
snerkler said:
Just because you can't see or hear something doesn't mean others can't. I do agree some claims are a bit absurd, but then I've seen some pretty extreme things when it comes to the human body.
Click to expand...
Absolutely! But expectations are very important, either way. If you expect to see no difference, you'll often see no difference, even if there's one there.
 
dancook said:
I've seen someone claim an image comparison of two lenses looked the same, one image wasn't even in focus properly. If they missed that, how could they even hope to find the subtleties..

People compare difference in lens bokeh all the time, whilst some people will just claim it's all the same.

No sensible discussion can be had.
Click to expand...

Well they were an idiot. I'm talking same exact settings, subject, lighting, everything ... You'll see little to know difference between 2 already proven sharp lenses.

I think even if I won the lotto I'd have limits on what I would splash on any lens. I wouldn't like to go beyond the 2K mark for ANY lens. Unless you're shooting something very intricate, specific, and absoloutely depend on the sharpest of the sharp ... I always think it's just merely for show when people splurge on such things.
 
Last edited:
dave.hallett said:
I would say only two things about top-quality lenses: very few photographers have the technique to make the differences between them signify anything in practice, and unless you need a specialised tool for a particular job, the differences rapidly blur into questions of taste - whether you like this or that kind of bokeh, whether you value saturation and micro-contrast over brute resolving power, etc. I think it's uncontroversial to say that in most situations, Fuji lenses are more than good enough for most photographers. If you have the chops to actually get the most out of a Leica 50mm, more power to you. For my part, I've been considering buying a C/Y or QBM 50mm Zeiss Planar 1.4, but I hesitate to do so, because I have a feeling that in the low light, high ISO situations where I currently use my SMC Pentax 1.4, they will actually be indistinguishable, particularly when combined with a focal reducer.
Click to expand...

I've shot extensively with the C/Y Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 and it's my favourite lens of all time once stopped down to f/2.8. At wider apertures, the Fuji 35/1.4 kills it on crop :o
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top