The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

Dave70D said:
Pixel peep if you want :) But I have seen some WOW landscape shots taken with both X cameras :)
Click to expand...


:agree: with that Sir.(y)

"I didn't think it was that time again already when the Fuji-X files were brought up again for the next round of knocking. Must admit, I for one am getting a little tired & p****d off with all this nonsense. My answer to it all is if anyone has doubts about a certain system then use somethin' else. SIMPLES"

George.
 
G.K.Jnr. said:
:agree: with that Sir.(y)

"I didn't think it was that time again already when the Fuji-X files were brought up again for the next round of knocking. Must admit, I for one am getting a little tired & p****d off with all this nonsense. My answer to it all is if anyone has doubts about a certain system then use somethin' else. SIMPLES"

George.
Click to expand...

I asked for help, a guide to what settings people use so stop with the cr*p, give me some advice or don’t comment. If you can’t admit there is an issue the x-trans files then you need to have a closer look vs something else.

No one as of yet has offered any help, which is the reason I almost didn’t bother asking as you always get the same knock down responses from people like you.
 
G.K.Jnr. said:
:agree: with that Sir.(y)

"I didn't think it was that time again already when the Fuji-X files were brought up again for the next round of knocking. Must admit, I for one am getting a little tired & p****d off with all this nonsense. My answer to it all is if anyone has doubts about a certain system then use somethin' else. SIMPLES"

George.
Click to expand...


Of what I have seen on this site and the other one I use, it is a pleasure to look at beautiful landscape shots. Some have come from Canon/Nikon and they just know how to do it, and some don`t :)
 
Tom Green said:
I will admit, I do pixel peep and if I’m spending £1000 on a body it needs to be able to provide crisp images when processed. I see no reason I shouldn’t be able to pixel peep when spending that amount of money.

Also, what’s the point in an amazing sharp 16mm lens for example when you can’t even process sharp images out of it?
Click to expand...

I can't/don't/haven't see/seen issues with X-Trans processing but there is a lengthy post here, covering the issues you mention - might be worth a read ...
 
Dave70D said:
Of what I have seen on this site and the other one I use, it is a pleasure to look at beautiful landscape shots. Some have come from Canon/Nikon and they just know how to do it, and some don`t :)
Click to expand...

Which is why I have asked for advice, to find out what people use...

Plus, as mentioned, people advise to just not pixel peep. That says to me ‘if you don’t look then you can’t see it’
 
Tom Green said:
Which is why I have asked for advice, to find out what people use...

Plus, as mentioned, people advise to just not pixel peep. That says to me ‘if you don’t look then you can’t see it’
Click to expand...

The main thing I NEVER use in LR6 is the sharpen as I use Topaz Detail as imo it is a damn sight better.
 
Tom Green said:
Which is why I have asked for advice, to find out what people use...

Plus, as mentioned, people advise to just not pixel peep. That says to me ‘if you don’t look then you can’t see it’
Click to expand...

Post a shot you have processed showing the issues that concern you, then post the RAW file to dropbox as has been suggested already.
 
@Dave70D I actually have stopped messing with the sharpen sliders in LR, I leave it just where it is, depending on profile selected, and usually give clarity a little nudge instead.

You need different techniques IMO with X-Trans 3 than previous X-Trans sensors and too many people are still using the old methods.

@Tom Green, I did offer to help by looking at one of your RAW files.
 
Oh Gawd, don't start all this again, some can't/don't see it, others (like myself) do but like everything else about the system so stick with it.

It is why I let my Adobe sub lapse though, that and my belief that they've stagnated.

The last thing anyone should do is go looking for it or advise anyone else to, it's like taking someone who has an old tv and who's perfectly happy with it to PC World and showing them the latest £8000 set ;)
 
Last edited:
Tom Green said:
Which is why I have asked for advice, to find out what people use...

Plus, as mentioned, people advise to just not pixel peep. That says to me ‘if you don’t look then you can’t see it’
Click to expand...


The very reason I sold my XT2 kit. Once you see the artifacts you can never unsee them.

But some people CAN'T see them and are happy with the kit.


I absolutely loved the Fuji system, still do in fact. But if I'm spending £1500 on a camera I want it to give perfect results.
 
GreenNinja67 said:
The very reason I sold my XT2 kit. Once you see the artifacts you can never unsee them.

But some people CAN'T see them and are happy with the kit.


I absolutely loved the Fuji system, still do in fact. But if I'm spending £1500 on a camera I want it to give perfect results.
Click to expand...

From what I've seen it's not the system, but how others process it, for example Luminar looks fine to me
 
Sharpen Fuji files in Lightroom? How quaint. Can't remember the last time I did that.
Last time I remember sharpening regularly was when I had the 5D3.

This topic comes up regularly. Those who sharpen will continue to do so. Those who don't will continue not to.
If you think your files need sharpening then nothing anyone can say or do will change your mind. If you are happy then you will never see the need.

It's a bit like the Canon/Nikon debate.
 
mickledore said:
Sharpen Fuji files in Lightroom? How quaint. Can't remember the last time I did that.
Last time I remember sharpening regularly was when I had the 5D3.

This topic comes up regularly. Those who sharpen will continue to do so. Those who don't will continue not to.
If you think your files need sharpening then nothing anyone can say or do will change your mind. If you are happy then you will never see the need.

It's a bit like the Canon/Nikon debate.
Click to expand...


Not quite Frank.

My RAWs were affected, not just after sharpening in LR.
 
I too see it pre-sharpening, just seems to depend on the image.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
@Dave70D I actually have stopped messing with the sharpen sliders in LR, I leave it just where it is, depending on profile selected, and usually give clarity a little nudge instead.

You need different techniques IMO with X-Trans 3 than previous X-Trans sensors and too many people are still using the old methods.

@Tom Green, I did offer to help by looking at one of your RAW files.
Click to expand...

True, my apologies.
 
Tom Green said:
Which is why I have asked for advice, to find out what people use...

Plus, as mentioned, people advise to just not pixel peep. That says to me ‘if you don’t look then you can’t see it’
Click to expand...


Tom always found this bloke quite good might be worth having a look https://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotography.com/blog/2017/10/x-transformer-10-released

When I do use Transformer my default settings are
Raw Process - Smoother
Sharpening - None
Turn off LR sharpening - check
LNR - None
CNR - Low
DNG baseline noise tag - adobe default
Lens correction - personal preference
Check or lens correction options

Back in LR usually use Provia film sim and I do very little sharpening
 
yamahatdm900 said:
Tom always found this bloke quite good might be worth having a look https://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotography.com/blog/2017/10/x-transformer-10-released

When I do use Transformer my default settings are
Raw Process - Smoother
Sharpening - None
Turn off LR sharpening - check
LNR - None
CNR - Low
DNG baseline noise tag - adobe default
Lens correction - personal preference
Check or lens correction options

Back in LR usually use Provia film sim and I do very little sharpening
Click to expand...

Thanks very much :)
 
I've just had a look at that RAW @Tom Green and are you sure it's in focus?

Im on a Mac and the exif doesn't show me what lens is used but it looks awful at 0 sharpening in LR CC

No offence
 
yamahatdm900 said:
Down in the Woods...
A quick wander round the local woodland.

Down in the Woods by Graham Norton, on Flickr

For me the usual X-t2 and 16-55 combo.
Click to expand...
Nice! I did some shooting in Wytham Woods a couple of weekends back. I haven't processed the results yet, but the main thing I learned was that while there is great colour everywhere, and often lovely light, getting a simple composition is a big challenge :-)
 
Ian W said:
I can see for someone such as yourself then Terry, it may be a big plus for you and a big driver to upgrade to such a body should it be available. Curious to know if you've tried the Olympus bodies and if so, why you chose to go Fuji anyway without the IBIS?
Click to expand...

Not that keen on olympus handeling nor the 4-3rds sensor. Nor their styling. Fuji have enough ois lenses to cope.
 
The weather for this shot was not exactly congenial. The wind was strong and I kept having to put the camera away because it was raining too hard. But it made for some great skies, well worth it.

This is with the 18-55 kit, because I needed the longer length and didn't want to change too much, although I went back to the 10-24 later in the day. For this kind of shot, I doubt anyone would see a difference. Maybe printed very large...


Majestic by David Hallett, on Flickr
 
Tom Green said:
I asked for help, a guide to what settings people use so stop with the cr*p, give me some advice or don’t comment. If you can’t admit there is an issue the x-trans files then you need to have a closer look vs something else.

No one as of yet has offered any help, which is the reason I almost didn’t bother asking as you always get the same knock down responses from people like you.
Click to expand...



If you'd taken the time to look back just thirteen posts before your original question, you'd have seen that this very day I had already posted my workflow re-sharpening using LR & PS to someone else. If that's not help then I don't know what is.

George.
 
GreenNinja67 said:
I've just had a look at that RAW @Tom Green and are you sure it's in focus?

Im on a Mac and the exif doesn't show me what lens is used but it looks awful at 0 sharpening in LR CC

No offence
Click to expand...

Could have given a better example... was handheld at a pretty slow shutter - see the one of the house, look at the grass.

Added another foliage shot as well.
 
Do yourself a favour. Borrow a friends camera and repeat the shots. Only you can tell if Fuji is for you. I have some wonderful shots on the XT2 of my dog in the studio. Unfortunately on foliage and skin in my experience it falls short
 
GreenNinja67 said:
Do yourself a favour. Borrow a friends camera and repeat the shots. Only you can tell if Fuji is for you. I have some wonderful shots on the XT2 of my dog in the studio. Unfortunately on foliage and skin in my experience it falls short
Click to expand...

Yeah - dog in a studio is a different ballgame. Anything other than landscape in my opinion it would be perfect.
 
I found that. But I wanted a do it all camera. I'm shooting olympus now and have come from full frame Canon. I'm staggered with the quality. Take a look at my Flickr
 
Tom Green said:
Yeah - dog in a studio is a different ballgame. Anything other than landscape in my opinion it would be perfect.
Click to expand...
Tom, I just took a quick look. The one with the metal arch is just soft, probably camera shake. The one with the brick bridge, the bricks look fine but the grass is out of focus, because you're shooting wide open at f/2. I can process it, but that grass is always going to be a blur. The third file doesn't seem to have finished uploading yet.

Based on this quick look, I would say you're judging from the wrong starting point. Don't even bother borrowing another camera. Go back and take the bridge shot again (it's a nice composition, bar the half-person in the arch) but with a tripod and the aperture at f/8 or so, focusing on the bricks. After that, if you're not happy with the sharpness, I'll be happy to see if I can do any better.

Edit: OK, I have the house one now. That looks like a better starting point. Will see how it turns out.
 
Last edited:
dave.hallett said:
Tom, I just took a quick look. The one with the metal arch is just soft, probably camera shake. The one with the brick bridge, the bricks look fine but the grass is out of focus, because you're shooting wide open at f/2. I can process it, but that grass is always going to be a blur. The third file doesn't seem to have finished uploading yet.

Based on this quick look, I would say you're judging from the wrong starting point. Don't even bother borrowing another camera. Go back and take the bridge shot again (it's a nice composition, bar the half-person in the arch) but with a tripod and the aperture at f/8 or so, focusing on the bricks. After that, if you're not happy with the sharpness, I'll be happy to see if I can do any better.

Edit: OK, I have the house one now. That looks like a better starting point. Will see how it turns out.
Click to expand...

Yeah that was literally taken for testing purposes. Would have had my tripod if I hadn't forgot it. Will get some sorted this weekend then upload a new link.

EDIT: added another maybe more appropriate image.
 
Last edited:
dave.hallett said:
Nice! I did some shooting in Wytham Woods a couple of weekends back. I haven't processed the results yet, but the main thing I learned was that while there is great colour everywhere, and often lovely light, getting a simple composition is a big challenge :)
Click to expand...

Look forward to seeing the results, I do struggle in woodlands a case can't see the wood for the trees.
 
dave.hallett said:
The weather for this shot was not exactly congenial. The wind was strong and I kept having to put the camera away because it was raining too hard. But it made for some great skies, well worth it.

This is with the 18-55 kit, because I needed the longer length and didn't want to change too much, although I went back to the 10-24 later in the day. For this kind of shot, I doubt anyone would see a difference. Maybe printed very large...


Majestic by David Hallett, on Flickr
Click to expand...
So simple yet so beautiful. My first thought was that this would make a great mono, but then I decided that the subtle colours are what completed the photo. Top marks!
 
Stephen L said:
So simple yet so beautiful. My first thought was that this would make a great mono, but then I decided that the subtle colours are what completed the photo. Top marks!
Click to expand...
Aw thanks. That's very kind of you. I did think about the mono, partly because it might make the slightly burned area more acceptable, but I felt it would lose something too. Maybe another day I'll give it a go...
 
Tom Green said:
Yeah that was literally taken for testing purposes. Would have had my tripod if I hadn't forgot it. Will get some sorted this weekend then upload a new link.

EDIT: added another maybe more appropriate image.
Click to expand...
Tom, I've given the house a very quick edit, possibly slightly oversharpening in my quest for maximum detail, but I don't see any worms, halos or other obvious artefacts.

I'll message you with the Dropbox link, as there's no point in trying to judge it at forum sizes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top