Wedding snaps from a Fuji X100s

M

mr_v_s

Suspended / Banned
Messages
272
Edit My Images
No
I've been reading up about this camera and I definitely think it's going to be my next purchase. I've stepped out of wedding photography but I think it's a great compliment to the work I do (I was curious about the first iteration but never really got round to considering it a serious purchase, put off by its quirks).

Well I spotted a guy who's been road-testing the camera with pros and cons and liked his wedding post: http://www.briankraft.com/Blog/fuji-x100s-wedding-photography-colorado/

Would be interesting to see what others think. Apologies if it's been posted before but I like the idea of having an extra option when snapping. (Has anyone snapped a wedding or wedding photos with the first version of this camera?)
 
Just to note, said photographer was tagging along with the official wedding photographer but I'm very impressed with what he came up with, some are as good as if not better than some of the DSLR work I've done.
 
I had one for a while, and while it is a great little camera, it doesn't have the responsiveness of a DSLR for me. By which I mean that there is a noticeable delay between pressing the button and taking the photo (noticeable to someone used to a DSLR) and although all the manual controls are there, I found theme slightly harder to use due to some of them being under menus.

That said, it's still a good camera and lots of people swear by them :)
 
Interesting! I generally use two DSLRs at a time but I did ponder the idea of having a third. I'll usually use a zoom and a prime on the go but to have a (lightweight) 35mm equivalent would be handy (I've got 24, 50, 60 and 85 primes alongside my holy trinity of zooms).

I was toying with the idea of an RX1 as well. That seems like a very capable camera.
 
Yep, definitely a good camera that can produce images on a par with a DSLR (which is not surprising as the sensor is the same!)

Agree with James, the handling and operational speed is just not there though. Not sure I even really need the handling and operational speed of a DSLR but I prefer using one anyway and even old cheap DSLRs outperform the X100 in that respect.
 
Don't know about anyone else, but those photos look awful on my monitor. The blacks are all dark grey :/
 
mid_gen said:
Don't know about anyone else, but those photos look awful on my monitor. The blacks are all dark grey :/
Click to expand...

Apparently this is intentional. He says at the top :-

And yes, I know my black levels are high– it’s intentional. The camera is capable of producing an amazing dynamic range. I only mention it because I know some people will be confused (and some will even be ****ed off… I have no idea why).
Click to expand...
 
It's the fashion to produce flat B&Ws for some wedding work. For the same reason I'm not going to comment on the ceremony colours ;)

Seems to be picking up more noise than I'd expect though.

But yeah, Fujis can cope with weddings.
 
mid_gen said:
Don't know about anyone else, but those photos look awful on my monitor. The blacks are all dark grey :/
Click to expand...

Chris, the photographer appears to be mimicking the look of fast Neopan and Superia film. As Jonathan said this style became popular a year or so back. You're not really seeing noise, instead that's grain which has been added during pp.
 
Fair enough, wasn't just me! 'Awful' isn't the right word, not to my taste though, prefer more contrast :)
 
Nice photos, OT white text on black background is so rubbish.
 
I am not sure why anyone would want to produce the underexposed film look, printed with a restricted range of tones.
The shots them selves are well seen, the quality is horrible in my eyes.

It is a strange affectation to ape poor technical quality as a plus point.
 
swanseamale47 said:
They are low in contrast.
Click to expand...

They are not just low contrast they have little if any detail in either dark or light areas.

The effect is the same as printing a heavily under exposed film and then printing on to grade 4 paper, Representing the max density as a dark grey.

Things that many of us have done over the years in an attempt at salvage.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I am not sure why anyone would want to produce the underexposed film look, printed with a restricted range of tones.
The shots them selves are well seen, the quality is horrible in my eyes.

It is a strange affectation to ape poor technical quality as a plus point.
Click to expand...

Spot on! Why anyone would want to show off the capabilities of a camera with "effects" like that is beyond me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top