The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

Dave70D said:
A very under rated lens is the great XC 50-230mm.
Click to expand...

That is the compromise you get, when you want a small light weight long zoom lens.
Actually a 4.5 6.7 is very practical for a travel lens.

This was shot at 230 mm at F7.1 from across the road, and is sharp across the frame.TXE4432-3XCweb.jpg
 
Last edited:
I owned both the 50-230 and the 55-200 for Fuji, and the 55-200 is a lot better in almost every way IMO. It can be also got used for not a lot more than a new 50-230 mkII. The OIS is at least a stop better I found, and it's a lot brighter at 4.8 Vs 6.7 at the long end, this makes a lot of difference when light isn't ideal. The 55-200 is also much better built, it has a much better quality feel to it - doesn't feel like a kit lens where the 50-230 certainly does. BUT ... if you're only going to use the lens very occasionally, and you know it'll be in good light, then a used 50-230 will save some money that could be put toward a prime. IQ-wise there's nothing in it
 
Cagey75 said:
I owned both the 50-230 and the 55-200 for Fuji, and the 55-200 is a lot better in almost every way IMO. It can be also got used for not a lot more than a new 50-230 mkII. The OIS is at least a stop better I found, and it's a lot brighter at 4.8 Vs 6.7 at the long end, this makes a lot of difference when light isn't ideal. The 55-200 is also much better built, it has a much better quality feel to it - doesn't feel like a kit lens where the 50-230 certainly does. BUT ... if you're only going to use the lens very occasionally, and you know it'll be in good light, then a used 50-230 will save some money that could be put toward a prime. IQ-wise there's nothing in it
Click to expand...


But then I only paid £139 for my 50-230 brand new delivered... so I am not complaining.:exit:
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
But then I only paid £139 for my 55-230 brand new delivered... so I am not complaining.:exit:
Click to expand...

I paid less, though it was used in good nick :) That was the mk1, and it might be the reason I found the OIS much better on the 55-200. I believe the mkII OIS was improved but not sure by how much
 
Cagey75 said:
I paid less, though it was used in good nick :) That was the mk1, and it might be the reason I found the OIS much better on the 55-200. I believe the mkII OIS was improved but not sure by how much
Click to expand...

Yes mine is the MK2 OIS but I still use a monopod/walking pole with it at long reach, to counter my age related shaky hand. Just as I would for any longer than normal lens.
 
Today I took the decision to become a one system shooter, I have traded all my Olympus Equipment and am adding the XT3 and 50-140mm f.8 + t/c to my ever growing Fuji Equipment. I am now covered from 10-400mm and beyond with 1.4 t/c. I am looking forward to shooting Fuji through 2019 and getting to use prime lenses again.
 
Gandalf said:
Today I took the decision to become a one system shooter, I have traded all my Olympus Equipment and am adding the XT3 and 50-140mm f.8 + t/c to my ever growing Fuji Equipment. I am now covered from 10-400mm and beyond with 1.4 t/c. I am looking forward to shooting Fuji through 2019 and getting to use prime lenses again.
Click to expand...
The 50-140 is my favourite lens. I will add a 1.4 t/c at some point.
 
chrism_scotland said:
Is anyone using the new “Enhance Details” function in Lightroom/Camera RAW? Does it make as much difference on Fuji raws as they’re making out?
Click to expand...


I don't use LR CC, I use classic CC, and I can't find the enhance detail function, while in the develop module.
 
rick448 said:
Is yours the standalone version? If so It won't be supported as they are no longer providing updates.
Click to expand...


No, it's Classic CC, part of the normal monthly scheme (I don't like the new CC interface, and I have 2TB of images which I don't want to store on the Internet, or pay for the pleasure of doing so.

Terrywoodenpic said:
it wont work in windows 7 only in win 10
Click to expand...

I'm on a Mac (isn't everyone?) ;)
 
addicknchips said:
not what i usually shoot but the 90mm did well.
Click to expand...

This wasn't shot at that place in Gloucestershire was it? I have some images similar from a few years ago, and they were using a European Eagle Owl. (Where we're moving to, there's an escaped one in the local woods... That's at the top of my list to spot!!)
 
Jelster said:
This wasn't shot at that place in Gloucestershire was it? I have some images similar from a few years ago, and they were using a European Eagle Owl. (Where we're moving to, there's an escaped one in the local woods... That's at the top of my list to spot!!)
Click to expand...

hi, no it was at shepreth park, near Cambridge. not much there tbh.
 
Advice again please, I have the following... Two X-T3s and X100F plus the XF35mm f2 XF50mm f2 and XF90mm f2, would it be silly if I added the XF56mm f1.2 to my kit as I will be doing some promo shoots outside and inside this year plus I have a wedding next year ( brought forward ).
 
Dave70D said:
Advice again please, I have the following... Two X-T3s and X100F plus the XF35mm f2 XF50mm f2 and XF90mm f2, would it be silly if I added the XF56mm f1.2 to my kit as I will be doing some promo shoots outside and inside this year plus I have a wedding next year ( brought forward ).
Click to expand...

personally i'd be going as fast as possible regarding glass for weddings, never know what light you'll be dealing with indoors too. definitely the 56mm if its already a consideration.
 
addicknchips said:
personally i'd be going as fast as possible regarding glass for weddings, never know what light you'll be dealing with indoors too. definitely the 56mm if its already a consideration.
Click to expand...

Thank you Jonathan, I have been considering getting the 56mm so will also look at a few reviews too.
 
The 56 is a stellar lens. Definitely one of my top 3 lenses
 
addicknchips said:
its a low light beast. for a wedding its great indoors and then switch to the 90mm outdoors.
heres one from last night with the 56 apd.

apd3-1 by Jonathan Howes, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Great image, think it will be the Non apd lens but that is a cracking shot.
 
Had a sort of a go at Street the weekend, all a bit confusing to be honest. My admiration goes out to the people who do it well but funny enough really enjoyed myself so it seems I be going back.
Here's a couple of my first efforts.

Into the LIght by Graham Norton, on Flickr

Being Watched 2 by Graham Norton, on Flickr

Kicking myself on the last one for not focusing on where the person was going to be.
 
OK, there is going to be a bit of a loaded question on a Fuji thread but here goes. As a self-confessed GAS head (I just can’t help myself), I’ve acquired and sold some very nice photographic equipment over the years.

My current set up is decent Micro Four thirds system (EM1 MK II and G9), and a really nice developing Fuji system (X-T3 and X-H1) with some nice Fuji glass (including the 10-24, 16-55, 50-140 and 100-400). Despite having all this nice equipment, my “disease” doesn’t stop me looking at other systems. The one that caught my eye recently is the Nikon Z series, with a Z6, FTZ adaptor and the 24-70 F4 lens to be had for just over £2k on the like of Panamoz. It was whilst pondering this system I got to actually thinking about how much of a step up (if any) in quality, a FF camera would give me over my Fuji system.

Now, here’s where it gets a little difficult. Just a few years ago, the obvious reason to move away from FF was the size and weight of such cameras and their lenses. Now whilst most of the FF lenses are still large and heavy, the body sizes have now come down to the same size and weight as Fuji (or Miro Four Thirds for that matter), and (certainly for the Nikon Z), the new 24-70 lenses are very much smaller and lighter than traditional FF lenses, so it’s now starting to erode the argument that a lot of people used against FF in the past.

So, then onto the question of image quality. Now, I should clarify, I’m not referring to DOF here, as most of the time, it’s not super important to me to have razor thin DOF, and in any case, chances are that there’s a lens in Fuji’s line up (like the 56mm F1.2) that will get you very close to what FF can offer (not exact, but not massively different). So what then about DR and High ISO noise. I keep hearing that FF has much better noise handling that say a Fuji X-T2/3 and better DR, but how much better is better? Is it a Stop, is it less than that, as depending on what website you end up on, the figure changes from “a massive difference”, to “imperceptible and a 1/3 of a stop at most”. When I check images on line, unless it's shot on a low light monster (such as a Nikon D5), I myself, certainly don't see a huge difference (certainly up to around ISO 6,400-12,800 which is about as high as I will ever go), from my Fuji cameras (maybe rose tinted spectacles ?).

So to put my GAS to bed once and for all, those that have had Fuji and moved up to FF, or those going the other way round, what exactly have you gained / lost ?
 
Guys,

Question needs answering please, can you pixel map on the XT1?
 
Sootchucker said:
OK, there is going to be a bit of a loaded question on a Fuji thread but here goes. As a self-confessed GAS head (I just can’t help myself), I’ve acquired and sold some very nice photographic equipment over the years.

My current set up is decent Micro Four thirds system (EM1 MK II and G9), and a really nice developing Fuji system (X-T3 and X-H1) with some nice Fuji glass (including the 10-24, 16-55, 50-140 and 100-400). Despite having all this nice equipment, my “disease” doesn’t stop me looking at other systems. The one that caught my eye recently is the Nikon Z series, with a Z6, FTZ adaptor and the 24-70 F4 lens to be had for just over £2k on the like of Panamoz. It was whilst pondering this system I got to actually thinking about how much of a step up (if any) in quality, a FF camera would give me over my Fuji system.

Now, here’s where it gets a little difficult. Just a few years ago, the obvious reason to move away from FF was the size and weight of such cameras and their lenses. Now whilst most of the FF lenses are still large and heavy, the body sizes have now come down to the same size and weight as Fuji (or Miro Four Thirds for that matter), and (certainly for the Nikon Z), the new 24-70 lenses are very much smaller and lighter than traditional FF lenses, so it’s now starting to erode the argument that a lot of people used against FF in the past.

So, then onto the question of image quality. Now, I should clarify, I’m not referring to DOF here, as most of the time, it’s not super important to me to have razor thin DOF, and in any case, chances are that there’s a lens in Fuji’s line up (like the 56mm F1.2) that will get you very close to what FF can offer (not exact, but not massively different). So what then about DR and High ISO noise. I keep hearing that FF has much better noise handling that say a Fuji X-T2/3 and better DR, but how much better is better? Is it a Stop, is it less than that, as depending on what website you end up on, the figure changes from “a massive difference”, to “imperceptible and a 1/3 of a stop at most”. When I check images on line, unless it's shot on a low light monster (such as a Nikon D5), I myself, certainly don't see a huge difference (certainly up to around ISO 6,400-12,800 which is about as high as I will ever go), from my Fuji cameras (maybe rose tinted spectacles ?).

So to put my GAS to bed once and for all, those that have had Fuji and moved up to FF, or those going the other way round, what exactly have you gained / lost ?
Click to expand...

Like you I have thought about such things.
However though a "good big one"will always beat a "good small one" other thing being equal.. one has to take into consideration what one wants to achieve to make sense of the problem.
A professional should always use the "best" equipment for the Job. This might be the most suitable because it give the highest quality, create the largest enlargement, be able to withstand the worst conditions, be the most inconspicuous, be the lightest, fastest to use. have the fastest focus, have the fastest shooting rate etc. etc.etc.
It is probable that a professional will have more than one system each used for different specialities.

An enthusiast has another set of priorities which probably also includes pride of ownership and a fair dollop of GAS.

For me size weight and quality of output of the things I find interesting to photograph, are all important factors.
I have no need of large files and vast pixel counts and their ability to produce giant prints.
For me APS is more than adequate as a sensor size to produce what I need and anything over 16 mega pixels will produce excellent images at the sizes that I require. because of my age related tremor I need anti shake of some sort.

I can afford any of the Fuji cameras, but have made perhaps a surprising choice in an X30 and an XE2 but I might add the new XT30 as it looks interesting and GAS is always a factor in these things. ( I certainly do not need one)

What I do not need at all is a FF camera, nor a medium format.

Every one could write a list of their own needs wants and aspirations, and it would be a useful starting point in your own circumstances. Such a list does a great deal to eliminate contenders from the field. while zeroing in on what you need.
It may be that you do need FF for some of your work, but that it would be totally inconvenient and overkill for other aspects.

If you can afford what ever you need. Put the cost aspect on one side, and make the decision on what you need to fulfill your aspirations.
You may be pleasantly surprised. On the other hand it might entail a trip to the bank.
 
Last edited:
ianmarsh said:
Are you sure you are up to date. I use CC classic and both the Photo menu or right clicking the image work for me.
Click to expand...

All m apps are up to date, but I have just received a message to say that the Catalogue needs to be updated....
 
Very eloquently put Terry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top