The Official Fuji X10/X20/X30/XF1/XQ1 Thread

[AshleyC]

Essexash - that has come out very well! Looks like you fired that off at softness 3 to get that great bokeh effect.

That was the first time that i noticed the 1,2 and 3 on the screen so did one of each but stuck with the 3. I really ought to read the user guides with new kit more often!

I dont know if there would be a true and tested way of getting it with people. Defining the edges around hair and clothes must be a nightmare. I can certainly see how it would be more easy to acheive a good effect with hard edges. Unless you can position the subject so there is more of a constrast between them and the background i think it would be tricky, maybe spot or centre weighted metering to knock the exposure of the background down a bit may help.

 

[souldeep]

Unless you can position the subject so there is more of a constrast between them and the background i think it would be tricky, maybe spot or centre weighted metering to knock the exposure of the background down a bit may help.

Thats an interesting point. It may be around exposure. If you take my GF shot as an example the background was quite bright. If I remember correctly it was set to centre metering though.

 

[AshleyC]

it would be interesting to get a better idea of how it works. In my shot there ive got 2 black cameras sat on some black velvet and it worked ok. Youd think your shot, with more contrast, would work out better.

 

[souldeep]

I don’t have all the answers yet I’m afraid because I’m still trying to get the best from the camera but with the X10 I’ve found you really do have two or three different ways to try and create the same effect. An example would be what I just mentioned about bright light conditions or another example would be bokhey (sorry forgotten how the Japanese effect is spelt). I have three different ways (and I am sure there are more) I try this. The easiest (but consistently the worst) is to use the advanced pro focus – trouble is that function ruins photos. Here is one example (my GF) of this function – check the blur around arms and hair (nothing I can do to recover this);

The middle option (but getting a satisfactory focus can sometimes be a struggle in strong light) is to use Macro mode and zoom in on the subject about 4-8ft away (best with portrait photography). An example of this – notice clearly defined lines in snuffulificus’s (probably also spelt wrong) hair, much better sDOF option;

Final way – which gets best consistent results – but can be slow to set up (which means you have to be ready and waiting for street shot portrait) is in manual mode and set your Aperture right down to f2 or f2.8 at the long end.

Anyway just some examples and don’t mean to sound condescending as most of you know all of this. BTW the above examples are snaps from the Dubrovnik set as well.

Robenroute – the stalks are cool – the colours good and I like the reflection Please post more.

BTW – when catching up through a month’s worth of posts I saw some images that really stuck in my mind. They were of a dragonfly with a very skilful use of SDOF. Props to whoever that was – would love to be able to have got some shots like that!

Essexash as we're discussing the ProFocus function, and the ProFocus issue I witness I thought I'd drag this original post to current page. You'll see my thinking regarding shallow DOF in the above. The top image has the blurring issues I've been mentioning.

 

[robenroute]

Martyn, that last character shot is still a cracker! Absolutely fantastic.

 

[AESamuel]

My x10 which came home from sensor replacement yesterday has been annoying me a little. If I line something up perfectly in the viewfinder it will end up being "higher up" in the picture which basically means the viewfinder is showing the upper part of the picture. The reason its annoying is I can't remember whether it was always like this or not! If it was like that before, no problem as I know I will just re-adjust to it like I did before and could frame properly with it but if it wasn't then it will need to go back!

I think it was like that before, I love using the viewfinder on this camera so hopefully I'll just get used to it again.

 

[Yv]

My x10 which came home from sensor replacement yesterday has been annoying me a little. If I line something up perfectly in the viewfinder it will end up being "higher up" in the picture which basically means the viewfinder is showing the upper part of the picture. The reason its annoying is I can't remember whether it was always like this or not! If it was like that before, no problem as I know I will just re-adjust to it like I did before and could frame properly with it but if it wasn't then it will need to go back!

I think it was like that before, I love using the viewfinder on this camera so hopefully I'll just get used to it again.

not sure I get you? The VF will see a different angle to the lens, that is normal....so for example, if I shoot the armchair I can see from here that is about 8ft away and line the base of the chair, with the bottom of viewfinder - the resulting picture shows about a foot of floor in front of it [so the chair appears higher in the frame], exactly as I would expect, given the viewfinder has a higher viewpoint than the lens AND only sees 80% of the overal lens image.... does that make sense?

 

[Neiltluck]

What I'd add though... Me and Si have the Cokin A range. It's very hard to find (in fact I can’t even find the straight ND’s anymore) and quite expensive. The P range is cheaper and readily available. Difference is size. It may look a bit crazy on the front of the X10 so if you go with the P range I would just buy the adapter first (you should be able to pick it up online somewhere for £8 or so) to check you feel comfortable with it on the X10.

Thanks for this Souldeep.

I have some P model grads knocking about so I will have a play

Cheers

Neil

 

[mphoto]

hello everyone.
it may be hard to believe, but I have just finished looking through the entire thread (took me a couple of days). It was truly refreshing to see the images and to read the postings, as the people here obviously prefer photography to pixel peeping and fruitless technical discussions/comparisons. That's absolutely great.
now, to the point. I have had my x10 for a couple of months now and I enjoy it tremendously. However, there are two issues I would like to hear your opinions on.
First is the sensor replacement. Actually, I have found this thread looking for the old and new sensor comparison. Although mine has exhibited the orb issue several times, I do not actually care about it. It is just that I had a talk with local Fuji service and they agreed to accept the camera for the swap. However, I was amazed to see the amount of negative experiences associated with sensor replacement (misaligned viewfinder, focus issues, rubber parts falling off, wrong cameras returned, etc). So, perhaps it would be reasonable to dismiss the idea and keep the camera as it is, especially given the fact that I am absolutely satisfied with it both from the image and from the functional perspective and the swap would only make sense in view of possible future sale of the camera?
Another thing that I am concerned with is dust in the lens. When I got the camera it was absolutely like-new (bought it off ebay with original case, spare battery, packaging and original invoice for something like 370EUR), but after some active use I start noticing that the zoom lens seems to be sucking in dust and there are several pretty large specs inside already. Now - as a photographer using both dslr and medium format film cameras, I know that dust in lenses has no effect on pictures. What I am worried about is the possibility of these specs landing on the sensor, which WOULD be a problem, as there is no way to clean it myself. Has anyone come across this, since I saw no mention of dust so far.

oh, and it was really interesting to read about all the accessories for the X10. Tomorrow I'll post a picture of something that would make a very nice addition to this beautiful little camera - both aesthetically and functionally

 

[twist]

I'm also concerned with what seem like slap dash repairs by Fuji, also items sent out from refurb store in the condition they have been. I rang up, all items are checked, repaired 'extensively' and sent out, what is received is not even free of fingerprints on lens, viewfinder and bits of food inbetween focus ring!!

I know it's not just me that has had this experience and appreciate some stuff arrives as new but surely a clean isnt asking for much when buying an expensive camera (x100 in my case).

I've ordered refurb stuff from a few stores and its always manufacturer full refurb, unmarked, as new and free of someone's lunch.

 

[souldeep]

hello everyone.

Hi Martin and welcome

I am absolutely satisfied with it both from the image and from the functional perspective

You've answered your question. I held off for a long time on the sensor swap until I had something I was unhappy with. If it ain't broke - don't fix it. BTW without you swap cameras like you swap used toilet roll tubes I wouldn't place any concern on depreciation. The price has been falling faster than cliff jumper and the resale value between a new/old sensor will be negligible if it came to selling it in two or three years’ time. It's a good camera - and will continue to be so for years to come. It not an investment - it's a camera. What you get from it in pictures is what matters. Trust me when I say I believe you've invested wisely for a myriad of other reasons unrelated to money so stop worrying about issues like selling it and go enjoy it

I start noticing that the zoom lens seems to be sucking in dust and there are several pretty large specs inside already. Now - as a photographer using both dslr and medium format film cameras, I know that dust in lenses has no effect on pictures. What I am worried about is the possibility of these specs landing on the sensor, which WOULD be a problem, as there is no way to clean it myself. Has anyone come across this, since I saw no mention of dust so far.

You must have fallen asleep on those pages - I don't blame you. I gave up around page 50 when I tried re-reading it! It has been mentioned. If it becomes a problem then I'm sure you could chat up the Fuji collective to clean it for you. They have been nothing but accommodating in my experience (although maybe sometimes there may be a few engineers that work on the cameras that don't hold quite the same level of professional pride as the front desk lads)

Tomorrow I'll post a picture of something that would make a very nice addition to this beautiful little camera - both aesthetically and functionally

We await with baited breath

 

[AESamuel]

not sure I get you? The VF will see a different angle to the lens, that is normal....so for example, if I shoot the armchair I can see from here that is about 8ft away and line the base of the chair, with the bottom of viewfinder - the resulting picture shows about a foot of floor in front of it [so the chair appears higher in the frame], exactly as I would expect, given the viewfinder has a higher viewpoint than the lens AND only sees 80% of the overal lens image.... does that make sense?

I guess I didn't describe it very well but you did! Yes that is exactly what I was talking about so thanks for clearing up my muddled post!

Knowing that it isn't a muck-up by fuji is good as I was using the viewfinder absolutely fine before so I know I will re-adjust to it again

 

[mphoto]

thanks, souldeep.
no, I don't swap cameras like toilet paper rolls. in fact, my situation is a bit to the contrary - I get attached to the equipment I work with, with all the quirks and "problems", as long as it produces the results I want. I am still using my Nikons d100/d200 along with my d700/d3 in my daily work, just because I like the output of those CCD-based cameras (d100/d200 I mean). not to mention my lasting affection to animals like mamiya rb67, c330 and similar.
actually, it is dust in the lens that is bothering me more than the sensor swap. if there's a way it can get to the sensor, that would be bad. I must have missed the topic of dust on this thread, since the only one I can recall is about the camera that came back from service with dust on sensor. so, in my case the sensor swap was a secondary issue while talking to Fuji. As long as the dust stays in the lens and does not affect the images (maybe the sensor is protected by the rear glass elements), then it is ok with me.

the baited breath you say it's all about the synthesis of craft and function but I need my studio-residing Nikons to record the combination.

 

[souldeep]

Hi,

Neil here are a few with the filter attached from last weekend. Colour caste present but wasn't able to fix that. Still I'm medium happy with the result. Getting towards those type of silky water pics I want to achieve.

 

[souldeep]

it's all about the synthesis of craft and function

Now you're just talking down right dirty to me

My proverbial nipples have hardened, and you said you'd share today. Today it is!

 

[DayDreamer]

Souldeep just to prove I am still here I must say how impressed I am with your silky water shots. I am very impressed

Yes there are colour cast problems but surely they can removed in PP :shrug: Can't you put one or two in the PP section or the feedback/critique section?

 

[nog]

Hi,

Neil here are a few with the filter attached from last weekend. Colour caste present but wasn't able to fix that. Still I'm medium happy with the result. Getting towards those type of silky water pics I want to achieve.

Souldeep as you mentioned there is a colourcast and work in progress but think what stands out for me personally are the leaves? especially in no.5 - they look as if they are falling, in some of the other pics they look out of place as well. Now if its a silly question/comment excuse me as late night and earlyish morning

 

[happygolucky]

Took the X10 to see my mates play in a pub. I must say I'm happy how it handles in low light, this shot was took at ISO 3200.


1-DSCF0339 by hpygolucky, on Flickr

Doesn't seem to be too noisy :shrug:

 

[bailout]

Hi,

Neil here are a few with the filter attached from last weekend. Colour caste present but wasn't able to fix that. Still I'm medium happy with the result. Getting towards those type of silky water pics I want to achieve.

Just a very quick play with the colour balance. There is still a bit of purple in the water and what the colour balance should be is personal taste. I am sure that someone better at pp could make a better job of it.

 

[Piscator Pete]

Souldeep,


8147005370_34948e8615_c by wylyeangler, on Flickr

Would these colours be more accurate? I can't help feeling that the magenta cast adds something though.

Pete

 

[souldeep]

Wow - Pete and Bailout - I'm impressed. I need to go back to PP school! Actually my photos were always SOTC until I joined this thread and realised PP would allow me to experiment so I have a hell of a lot to learn. So how did you go about changing the colour balance like that? Interesting how you both have produced quite different results. Pete I tend to agree - I actually quite the magenta cast on piccy 5 - in fact that was the picture I was most proud of.

Keith - it's funny you picked up on 5 as the most disturbing. I see what you mean about the leaves looking like they are sliding. I hadn't noticed that before. The wet leaves are actually just sticking to the rocks. I actually wanted to get leaves into the shots as it was a representation of Autumn that I was trying to achieve. Surprised they detract from the images as I thought they added an extra dimension. I guess I could get rid of those in PP but I suppose I try and do minimum adjustments when I PP. Still point taken and I think I'll try and redo that shot taking into account the comments I've had so far.

John thank you - you are very kind

Oh BTW - the last image was taken without the filter attached - it was totally dark by that point and the moon, rather than the sun, is reflecting in the water. I shot all of them in Manual ISO 100.

 

[james n]

Not popped in here for a few days and then come back to more stunning shots. Lovely work guys (love the long exposures on the waterfalls).

James

 

[GIZTO29]

One from Blyth Beach... SOOC.

Blyth Beach Huts by Phil Whittaker (gizto29), on Flickr

 

[souldeep]

Wow what a great range of colours and warmth in the sun. Amazing for SOOC in what is really winter at the moment. Excluding the grass colouring, looks more like a summers evening shot. Composition is really attractive as well.

 

[Yv]

Hi,

Another quick edit using Lightroom [my preferred editing program, especially for the simple tweaks needed on the X10] I allowed LR to autoadjust the WB, then dropped the highlights a fraction, thats it. On my laptop atm, so not saying its perfect, but closer to 'natural' Must try some of these longer exposures with the X10 over winter, they look fab

 

[Neiltluck]

Hi,

Neil here are a few with the filter attached from last weekend. Colour caste present but wasn't able to fix that. Still I'm medium happy with the result. Getting towards those type of silky water pics I want to achieve.

Hi Souldeep,

Thanks for posting these. What a great set! Colour cast aside, I think I'm sold.

I will have a look around for an adapter ring that will fit my existing P Series holder and Grads.

Do I need a 39 or 40mm ring?

I will quite enjoy playing with the colour casts to create different effects I think!

Thanks again

Neil

 

[souldeep]

Hi YV - thanks to you (and all of those) that have had a go with sorting the colour caste. It looks like you all have the gift of how to do that and I have been given some ideas so I will look at that and maybe reload set.

Neil - Thanks. Yes the filter is useful if you want to fire long exposures in daylight. Regarding the adapter I'm not sure. That depends on your adapter on the lens. I have a 52mm.

 

[Spiritflier]

Hi Martyn,

Those long exposures look pretty good.

Cheers,
Si

 

[mphoto]

now, isn't it beautiful...
Leitz Wetzlar tabletop tripod. Small, made entirely of metal, with removable head. Extremely stable and comfortable. Originally I have bought it for my FM2, but now it has become an inseparable companion to my x10. I guess I was lucky enough to get one on ebay for ~40EUR, as the prices seem to have increased recently.
If you've been thinking about a reliable and functional table tripod that you can put in your pocket - you should surely try this one. There is also a version with taller head. enjoy

 

[Yv]

ohhh, me likey!! and it reminds me, somewhere in the junk spare room, we have an old German 'travel' tripod. It was never strong enough for a dslr, I think it was bought to go with the Kodak retinette we inherited from my late pa-in-law. Telescopic legs that will go long enough for a short arse like me, but an effective tabletop tripod too as as its only about 10in inc head without legs extended. Must try and find it.

 

[mphoto]

well, in case of emergency this one could be used to support a dslr

 

[Ed Sutton]

I can't match the quality of recent pictures posted in this thread, but I have been using my X10 quite a bit recently. I still find it frustrating to use, but it's greater depth of field is useful for something I'm 'working' on - http://www.dlst.co.uk/sandplant3/index.html.

 

[DuncanDisorderly]

Martin - wow, wonderful processing and presentation.
I wouldn't mind one of those table top tripods!

Dave - that last one is special.
Really floats my boat.
Can't put my finger on it, but it's something to do with layers and separation.
Superb capture and well spotted

As commented - the standard in this thread is very high recently.
Makes my shots look like snaps!

 

[crusher]

I haven't used by X10 for some time.......I also have an X100, and I've been using that a lot lately, but there was a lovely sunset building whilst I was in Devon earlier this week and so I grabbed a couple of shots with the X10 in "sunset" scene mode. They reminded me how damn good this little camera is:


Budleigh Salterton Sunset by Keith Burton, on Flickr


Budleigh Salterton Sunset by Keith Burton, on Flickr

 

[DayDreamer]

Makes my shots look like snaps!

I really really don't think so :nono:

 

[Ed Sutton]

Dave - that last one is special.
Really floats my boat.
Can't put my finger on it, but it's something to do with layers and separation.
Superb capture and well spotted

Thanks Duncan. It was one of those shots I nearly didn't bother taking.

 

[Piscator Pete]

Wow - Pete and Bailout - I'm impressed. I need to go back to PP school! Actually my photos were always SOTC until I joined this thread and realised PP would allow me to experiment so I have a hell of a lot to learn. So how did you go about changing the colour balance like that? Interesting how you both have produced quite different results. Pete I tend to agree - I actually quite the magenta cast on piccy 5 - in fact that was the picture I was most proud of.

Souldeep - I have a feeling you might be pulling my leg, but here goes:

I don't know how ''Bailout'' edited the image - or subsequently how Yvonne modified one of your splendid offerings - I hesitate to admit I just used MS Photo Editor that came with Office 2000 that was installed on my first computer. I've selected this version on each computer I've assembled since because it is so simple to use for colour correction only (red, green, and blue sliders). Subsequent versions of Editor seem to use colour correction via the secondaries which I can't get on with somehow. After that, if necessary, I apply Adobe Photoshop Elements 6 which came bundled with a Lumix 'point and shoot' compact camera I was given 5 years ago.

In your case, I could see there was a magenta cast, and so 'pulled back' more or less equally on the red and blue brightness sliders before any other routine adjustments to 'all colour' brightness, contrast, and gamma. Of course, the alternative would be to increase the brightness of the green, but for some reason in the case of your image, this created noise in the darker areas.

The downside I have recently found is that the 4:3 ratio "Large" image from the X10 is too big for my version of Photo Editor (2000) and is rejected: another reason for my choosing 3:2L 'on the camera'.

I'm pretty certain my process must be a crude, unsophisticated approach, but I can only plead that I'm completely untutored, only finding out about PP by trial and error; it works for me, and didn't cost anything.

I am now getting to grips with ''SilkyPix'' for RAW development which came bundled with my X10. I note that this programme is met with derision on some parts of the web which makes me the more determined to master it! Pig-headed perhaps, but again it didn't cost me anything! Mind you, as everyone has said, it's difficult to better a 'correctly' exposed JPEG image from the camera, but sometimes I am finding I can retrieve badly underexposed photos better from RAW.

Many thanks for your contributions.

Pete

 

[souldeep]

Martin - you sure didn't disappoint! It's a nice match with the X10. The photos are good as well! I have a gorilla pod that is light and allows me to fix the camera to most objects so I won't be swapping for the moment but great to see new ideas for X10 accessories - and with such style!

Dave - I have to agree with Duncan about your picture. I really really like that shot.

Keith - I'm starting to notice you have a unique style to your shots. I could be wrong but I seem to remember these are not the first I've seen from you that have sunsets with the rest of the subject in silhouette. I've not really tried that effect as I go for dynamic range instead but I will try and remember to work with silhouette when I next see a sunset (rare here in ol' blighty).

Pete - no not pulling your leg for real! I've never played with whitebalance in PP before and that is clearly where I was going wrong. It seems all the other contributions used the whitebalance functions in PP software. Sounds like the function you used, although not called whitebalance, is in fact a very similar function. Good luck with Silkypics - I've not tried it but like you, haven't heard the most positive feedback regarding it. Well as you say it came for free - and not shooting in 4:3 because of a PP package sounds crazy - so good luck with the new software

 

[souldeep]

As commented - the standard in this thread is very high recently.
Makes my shots look like snaps!

Joker - it's your shots that have spurred most of us on to do better! I can't touch your landscape shots. It's fascinating how this thread has evolved. It's almost become like a gallery. Some real good skills and eyes contributed to this thread. I'm dead jealous of your kingfisher (for those of you that havn't seen Duncan's adventures from last weekend read here http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=444641 and check out his Kingfisher!)

Si - thanks for your thumbs up on the water shots. It means a lot to me to me

 

[Ed Sutton]

Dave - I have to agree with Duncan about your picture. I really really like that shot.

Thanks.

It's not as nice as your water shots though - the last waterfall one in particular.