The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

Mr Perceptive said:
I think Fuji have borrowed Canon's Cripple Hammer and taken it to the EVF

X-E5 0.39in 2.36K
X100VI 0.5in 3.69K

In my mind at £1549 for the X-E5 + XF23mm F2.8 bundle, I'd be taking the X100VI, and for £50 be gaining a better EVF and faster lens (not to mention, leaf shutter, built in ND filter, OVF, etc, etc)
Click to expand...
If you can find the vi in stock though.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
I think Fuji have borrowed Canon's Cripple Hammer and taken it to the EVF

X-E5 0.39in 2.36K
X100VI 0.5in 3.69K

In my mind at £1549 for the X-E5 + XF23mm F2.8 bundle, I'd be taking the X100VI, and for £50 be gaining a better EVF and faster lens (not to mention, leaf shutter, built in ND filter, OVF, etc, etc)
Click to expand...
:plus1:
 
Same EVF as the XT50?

Is it me or the main difference between the XE5 to the XT50 is that film dial thing, flip vs tilt screen and the size?

They have the same sensor, same EVF, uses the same battery. neither does weather sealing. But one is currently like £600 cheaper!
 
Last edited:
FeatureFujifilm X‑T50Fujifilm X‑E5Fujifilm X‑T5
Announced2024June 12, 2025Nov 2, 2022
Body TypeSLR-style compact mirrorlessRangefinder-style, machined topSLR-style weather-sealed
Sensor / Processor40.2 MP X‑Trans CMOS 5 HR + X‑Processor 5SameSame
IBIS5‑axis up to 7 stops5‑axis, 7 stops5‑axis up to 7 stops
AutofocusDeep‑learning subject detectionAI-powered subject detectionIntelligent Hybrid with subject detection
Video6.2K30, 4K60, 10‑bit w/ F‑Log26.2K30 + tracking AF6.2K30, 4K60, FHD240
Viewfinder2.36 M-dot OLED EVF2.36 M-dot with “Classic Display”3.69 M-dot EVF
Rear Screen3″ 2‑way tilting touchscreen3″ tilt + 180° forward flip3″ 3‑way tilting touchscreen
Body Weight~438 g (with battery)~445 g~557 g (battery & card)
Weather SealingNoneNoneYes – rugged magnesium alloy
Memory CardsSingle UHS-II SD slotSingle SD slotDual UHS-II SD slots
BatteryNP‑W126S (~390 shots)NP‑W126S-size (not yet rated)NP‑W235 (~580 shots)
Max Shutter (electronic)—1/180,000 s1/180,000 s
Burst ShootingMechanical 8 fps, Electronic 20 fpsUp to 13 fps15 fps mech / 20 fps elec
 
Raymond Lin said:
Same EVF as the XT50?

Is it me or the main difference between the XE5 to the XT50 is that film dial thing, flip vs tilt screen and the size?

They have the same sensor, same EVF, uses the same battery. neither does weather sealing. But one is currently like £600 cheaper!
Click to expand...
Body only xt50 is about £150 cheaper than the xe5 at WEX

Sounds like the xe5 you can put a few custom recipes on the dial.

On the 50, you can only add 3 extra film sims to the dial. Would be nice to hope they might update that in software in the future for custom recipes
 
leaky5 said:
Body only xt50 is about £150 cheaper than the xe5 at WEX

Sounds like the xe5 you can put a few custom recipes on the dial.

On the 50, you can only add 3 extra film sims to the dial. Would be nice to hope they might update that in software in the future for custom recipes
Click to expand...

Sold by Amazon too. Body only its still £260 difference.

I2M8mrih.png
 
Last edited:
btw, LCE updates their website around lunchtime onwards from each branch....they will not answer their email / enquiries until Monday morning now and it is done on a first come first served basis....If anyone wants it, they need to click the enquiry button ASAP.
 
addicknchips said:
Looks very good and you’re absolutely right regarding the price for what you get imo
Click to expand...

Most camera manufacturers have a price creep going on with new releases, and OEM lenses seem to be the worst offenders. I though that this Sigma lens would come in at £999, but at at £779 its a bit of a steal - certainly put the cat among the pigeons, and possibly to head off the Chineses manufacturers, I'm sure it won't be long before we see the like of Viltrox with AF Zoom lenses.

The Sigma lens is not that much more than new XF16-50mm lens (though admitedly most of these will be bought as part of a kit) and is a whopping £370 less than the XF16-55mm F2.8 II lens. I'd happily sacrifice a bit of reach for the wider aperture.

I think the Sigma will be a popular purchase (in its sector)

Question for @trevorbray - why do releases like this always tempt us to buy more X- series kit....................................that we don't 'need'
 
Last edited:
why do releases like this always tempt us to buy more X- series kit....................................that we don't 'need'
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself - I think I'm going to have to upgrade the XC55-230mm at some point as it can't keep up with the autofocus on the X-T50. I am scared of the cost of the logical upgrade (XF 70-300mm) - over £500 for anything is a significant investment, let alone when its 'just' a lens
 
I'm neither here nor there on the Sigma TBH. It's a good option, but I feel like people are sweeping into the hype of the old 18-35mm and talking like this is the best lens to ever come to APSC (Not here, but on reddit/Youtube etc).

Yes it's 1.8, and yes it's sharp most of the time, but it's also large, has no IS, vignettes pretty bad, has terrible longitudinal CA, and the close focus performance at 40mm is so bad I can't believe they actually allowed it.

The only thing that would bother me there is the CA and possibly the close focus, but other than that it's a good option. Unless I absolutely positively had to have the 1.8 though, I'd rather go with the Tamron 17-70 or the 16-55 mkii.
 
colourofsound said:
Speak for yourself - I think I'm going to have to upgrade the XC55-230mm at some point as it can't keep up with the autofocus on the X-T50. I am scared of the cost of the logical upgrade (XF 70-300mm) - over £500 for anything is a significant investment, let alone when its 'just' a lens
Click to expand...

I suspect that the XC55-230 is resolution challenged with 40MP sensor so you'll be getting an IQ upgrade as well as AF speed, not to mention build quality, WR and some useful extra reach (and the ability to use the 1.4TC in the future as well), just need a bit of man-maths and it will be in your bag :)

My recent 'just a lens purchase' was over 10 times that amount - fortunately it has a camera body attached as a freebie :ROFLMAO:
 
jimmyjamjojo said:
I'm neither here nor there on the Sigma TBH. It's a good option, but I feel like people are sweeping into the hype of the old 18-35mm and talking like this is the best lens to ever come to APSC (Not here, but on reddit/Youtube etc).

Yes it's 1.8, and yes it's sharp most of the time, but it's also large, has no IS, vignettes pretty bad, has terrible longitudinal CA, and the close focus performance at 40mm is so bad I can't believe they actually allowed it.

The only thing that would bother me there is the CA and possibly the close focus, but other than that it's a good option. Unless I absolutely positively had to have the 1.8 though, I'd rather go with the Tamron 17-70 or the 16-55 mkii.
Click to expand...
The Sigma 18-50 is the real sweet spot for me and the perfect match for a smaller body.
 
colourofsound said:
Speak for yourself - I think I'm going to have to upgrade the XC55-230mm at some point as it can't keep up with the autofocus on the X-T50. I am scared of the cost of the logical upgrade (XF 70-300mm) - over £500 for anything is a significant investment, let alone when its 'just' a lens
Click to expand...
Very have got the 70-300 for £650 at the moment. I had a 20% off code recently too and I was sorely tempted...
 
jimmyjamjojo said:
The only thing that would bother me there is the CA and possibly the close focus, but other than that it's a good option. Unless I absolutely positively had to have the 1.8 though, I'd rather go with the Tamron 17-70 or the 16-55 mkii.
Click to expand...

The 17-40 has an aperture control ring.

I had a think about the Tamron 17-70 a couple of months ago when I was tempted on a price reduction - but decided that the lack of an aperture ring was a deal breaker. This area of the market is a bit of a conundrum if looking for a F2.8 or better mid range zoom. The Tamron looks like a decent option in terms if range and price - but no aperture ring. he Sigma 18-50 is a neat option but again no aperture ring. The older 16-55 is a bit expensive but large. The new 16-55 is neater than the old one - but the price really hurts.

This 17-40 looks very interesting - wider aperture but reduced zoom range - but for me that aperture ring is important - meaning in my world it's the only competitor to the old and new 16-55.
 
colourofsound said:
Nice! Another black hole hobby I have also fallen down - although its just espresso, I havent roasted my own yet...whats the process?
Click to expand...

Process is easy to grasp but difficult to master. I have just went down this rabbit hole this past week, from what I have learned so far.....

Apply heat source to green beans...3 phrases.

Phase 1 - Dehydration
Phase 2 - Browning (Maillard reaction)
Phase 3 - Development (What taste you prefer, this is where you get the term medium roast, dark roast etc)

The metric to consider before you start....the science.

1 - You want to aim for a dehydration of between 11.5 -16% dehydration for a medium roast. So if you put in 100g of green beans, if it comes out at 85g at the end. That's a good number. If it's like 90g/10% it is very likely it could still be a bit green, aka raw.

2 - Like cooking meat, but unlike a steak, you don't want a raw center, you want it roasted all the way through the bean. But too much heat at the start will mean it will be black before the inside is roasted. But you don't want to start too low and too long because you end up with a "baked" bean, rather than a "roast". How much heat you can apply depends on the type of bean, higher density beans can "take" higher heat, and more resilient to heat before it will burn. Generally higher altitude coffee will produce higher density beans. You can measure it against the same volume of water. Get a cup, say a 500ml glass. If you fill it with green beans, weigh it. If it weights 400g then you have a density of 0.8. In coffee, I think anything over 0.7 is consider a higher density bean. Mine was 0.766

Typical Phase 1 time is about 40-50% of the total time, depending on density, starting temp. Then Phase 2 is about 30-40% and then Phase 3 is like 10-20%.

3 - There are a lot of terms in coffee and lots of temperatures to roast them. Some people start off at like 160c (this would be for like a lower density coffee, I started at 200c straight off (because I was mostly winging it and I didn't want a baked bean). The way in which how long and what temp you use is call a "profile".

4 - After roasting, it is said you need to wait 3-5 days before drinking it to let the CO2 from the roasting built up inside to be released.

5 - Speaking of the terms used. The key words I've come to learn is "first crack" and "2nd crack". After the millard phase in phase 2, towards the end of that you will start to hear cracking noises, and if you watch it, the chaff from the skin of the bean starts to come off. This is call the First Crack, the first crack happens when the water moisture inside the coffee builds up too much and bursts open. So this is a indicator that the coffee is now "cooked" and you can stop right there and it will be drinkable. I wouldn't personally stop at the first sound, I would wait for the popping sound to stop, so there is some time in Phase 3, to get that little more brown colour. The 2nd crack will happen quite soon after if you don't stop it though, like as little as 90seconds after the first crack stops. The 2nd crack is when the oils in the bean now burst open. This is why dark beans looks shiny due to the oils coming up to the surface and it is at this stage where you will definitely start tasting bitterness. Almost all store-bought, definitely Starbucks coffee are at this stage. If you like your coffee a little dark, stop at the VERY first sign of the 2nd crack.

Then once you stop, you need to cool it to room temperature in less than 5mins. The stopping part is call The Drop, I believe it originates from big commercial roasters where in order to stop roasting, the open up the roasting chamber and all the beans drop onto a large cooling pan.. From the drop to beans at room temp in 5mins. My machine has a cool fan cycle, if you are doing it in a pan, you need to put it out on a large metal colander and then keep moving it around. The whole process from pressing the power button to the drop can be done in about 8mins for 200g of coffee. Not long at all.

Then you wait 5 days and then start drinking.

edit - another important term is "rate of rise", it is the rate of which the temperature is rising inside the roaster/beans. You want the rate of rise to be lower as you go. So you don't want to start at 160c then go to 170c then 220c. You want to go from like 160c to 200c then 220c. I am not sure as to why but that's what people who knows says.

It is quite a rabbit hole but it is rewarding, especially if you like real coffee and with coffee prices going up, this way I can get it cheaper too. I can get a bag of green Geisha (a type of coffee), for as little as £15 for 500g. If I were to buy a roasted Geisha, it would be double that for half the amount, like £30-40 for 225g bag. The stuff that most coffee shop sell for like £12 a bag, I can now get the same amount for half that. Of course, this is very much dependent on my skill as the "cook" of the coffee. There is a saying "The darker the coffee is, the less you taste of the farmer." or something like that. So to get the best out of these coffee, I would avoid going too dark a roast, as the darker it is, the less I am tasting of the farmer, the origin of the plant. I guess this is where the art of it is and what people are paying for in a store bought coffee. There is a balance between the taste of the farmer and the taste of the cook. You don't want a grassy raw taste, nor do you want a black burnt cup.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
Process is easy to grasp but difficult to master. I have just went down this rabbit hole this past week, from what I have learned so far.....
Click to expand...
Crikey. Thanks for the detailed summary! I just meant, like do you chuck them in the oven or the air fryer :ROFLMAO:

I bet they don't have discussions like this over on the Sony and Nikon threads ;)
 
colourofsound said:
Crikey. Thanks for the detailed summary! I just meant, like do you chuck them in the oven or the air fryer :ROFLMAO:

I bet they don't have discussions like this over on the Sony and Nikon threads ;)
Click to expand...

I started out writing you just apply heat to beans and hope for the best lol

I use an actual coffee roaster, albeit a cheap one. It’s similar design to a popcorn maker with a heat and fan element but more temperature and fan control and then a catcher at the top to trap all the chaff (skin of the beans) as it flakes off after the first crack.

You can use a sauce pan over a fire or air fryer to roast your beans but with a pan it’s much harder to control the heat and with air fryer you can't keep it moving to ensure even heat distribution.
 
Last edited:
benhben said:
Has anyone got the 16-55Mk II on pre order? Put my order in a while ago on Jessops, but no signs of any stock. Message from Jessops yesterday is they have no idea when they'll receive any.
Click to expand...
I was going to, but the Fujifilm House of photography couldn't even predict delivery dates. Originally they told me 2-3 weeks but when I went in to pay the deposit they said it could be several months!
Ended up buying one used.
 
beercan said:
I was going to, but the Fujifilm House of photography couldn't even predict delivery dates. Originally they told me 2-3 weeks but when I went in to pay the deposit they said it could be several months!
Ended up buying one used.
Click to expand...
You managed to get a used 16-55MK2? Thats a good find!
 
Yeah it was on here. I was very lucky to find one in the wild.
Which reminds me, time to buy the team a cuppa...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top