Fuji X-E1/X-E2/X-E2S/X-E3 Owners Thread

My cheapo fake leather one from eBay for about £13 is great. Its not as nice as the official Fuji one I have for my xpro1 but its more than adequate
 
shutter speed priority query
If i set the speed dial to say 125 i cant seem to adjust the speed with the dial past the one higher or lower dial setting. So for 125 i cant spin the speed past 180 or under 60. Is there a menu setting somewhere where it takes that limit off? i know i can just turn the speed dial but it would just be quicker to override it with the command dial.
 
since i got my XE2 I have been rather pleased with it, but had the usual issues with the RAW files that have been discussed in depth. I am a long time Lightroom user, and to be honest, having played around with the in camera settings I was getting jpeg files that 8/10 cases looked better than the RAW files. Getting the RAW to a decent standard would take a considerable amount of work, and in many cases, they were really be no better than the ooc jpegs. So since getting the XE2 i've been shooting RAW+fine. However I recently downloaded Capture one express 7, and didn't really do much with it since it felt a bit alien to me, then this week I had an email from capture one saying that i was entitled to a free upgrade to the brand new Capture one pro 8.

Well today I went out shooting RAW+fine as usual (since the switch to Fuji). I Brought some of the files back into lightroom and low and behold up rears the water color effect on some of the pictures. So i thought, why not give Capture one pro 8 a go. Well im glad I did, side by side, without any editing at all, in most cases the RAW files look better than the OOC jpegs. With a bit of tweaking they look even better.

If your an XE2 owner i urge you to download the trial version of capture one pro 8 and have a play. I think it really is showing off the quality of the fantastic sensor and X system lenses. I hadn't realised until today how badly Lightroom has been suppressing the true quality of the camera. And like I say, i'm a lightroom fan, and had basically decided to carry on using it, but shoot RAW+fine. Given today's results though, I think I will now be spending some time learning capture one, with a view to making it my main raw processor.

I am also now seriously thinking about going back to being a pure RAW shooter, and ditching the jpegs all together. Which is how i shot before Fuji.

I've put some examples on Flickr, look at the colour range in some of the shots as well as the level of detail.

The jpeg and RAW files were simply opened in Capture One Pro 8 then exported as jpegs without any adjustments.

Please don't pay too much attention to the photography itself, these are just shots I felt showed the differences between the two files

https://www.flickr.com/photos/danjwoodward/sets/72157647460253878/
 
I was in a similar position as in less than impressed with LR, but instead opted to try Photo Ninja.

Have now bought the full version and just using the basic presets it has made a big difference, even better with finer adjustments.

Don't think Adobe have got their act together yet for the x-trans sensor, pleased some independents have though.
 
tijuana taxi said:
I was in a similar position as in less than impressed with LR, but instead opted to try Photo Ninja.

Have now bought the full version and just using the basic presets it has made a big difference, even better with finer adjustments.

Don't think Adobe have got their act together yet for the x-trans sensor, pleased some independents have though.
Click to expand...

It's a shame, since like I say, i like Lightroom, I'm used to it, and like its usability,
But I see no sense having paid for a quality camera system, and accepting inferior image quality, when it's clearly capable of so much more
 
danwoodward100 said:
I am also now seriously thinking about going back to being a pure RAW shooter, and ditching the jpegs all together. Which is how i shot before Fuji.

I've put some examples on Flickr, look at the colour range in some of the shots as well as the level of detail.

The jpeg and RAW files were simply opened in Capture One Pro 8 then exported as jpegs without any adjustments.

Please don't pay too much attention to the photography itself, these are just shots I felt showed the differences between the two files

https://www.flickr.com/photos/danjwoodward/sets/72157647460253878/
Click to expand...

Just having a play about with it now. Initially seems to get far more detail out of the shadows and suppresses noise far better the LR. Do you know if there is a way to do radial filters in the software (i use these a lot in LR)
 
Slowly getting to grips with the E2, took this earlier today :)

2014_0921_16200900.jpg
 
Last edited:
I've been running a two week trial of the Photo Ninja software for my RAW to JPG workflow and I have to say it does a much better job of retaining detail than my previous use of Adobe Camera Raw.

Is anyone else using Photo Ninja?
 
I am Kenny, bought the full version and well pleased with it thus far

There is an updated beta version that deals with shadow detail better, keep meaning to give it a try
 
kennysarmy said:
See if you can work out which was done using ACR and which was done using Photo Ninja
Click to expand...

There seems to be am amazing amount of extra detail, for example in the flowers, in the top one, so I'm guessing that's Photo Ninja?
 
kennysarmy said:




100 % crops.

See if you can work out which was done using ACR and which was done using Photo Ninja
Click to expand...

The level of detail in the flowers and grass is far higher in the top one, and the colour is rendered better too
 
I would like to try capture 8 but at nearly £200 its a bit much, especially when I already pay Adobe CC nearly £9 a month.
 
jakeblu said:
The level of detail in the flowers and grass is far higher in the top one, and the colour is rendered better too
Click to expand...

The top one is indeed processed with Photo Ninja and the bottom one with Adobe Camera Raw.

Happy to provide anyone with the RAW file - perhaps we can all do some processing on it to see whose RAW->JPG process produces the best copy.
 
kennysarmy said:
Put the RAW file on my drop box:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hy54ku2mny5qdpr/DSCF9636.RAF?dl=0
Click to expand...

Many thanks for posting that Jeff. I too have been happy with lightroom and thought the "problems" were highly exaggerated. Had a couple of minutes play with your file in Lightroom and just cannot get anywhere near the level of detail that Photoninja gives on opening it.

Just wish I had a clue how to use Photoninja. I downloaded the trial last week but gave up on it after half an hour as it just wasn't as simple to use as Lightroom. Looks like it might be worth the effort of learning.
 
Barrysprout said:
Many thanks for posting that Jeff. I too have been happy with lightroom and thought the "problems" were highly exaggerated. Had a couple of minutes play with your file in Lightroom and just cannot get anywhere near the level of detail that Photoninja gives on opening it.

Just wish I had a clue how to use Photoninja. I downloaded the trial last week but gave up on it after half an hour as it just wasn't as simple to use as Lightroom. Looks like it might be worth the effort of learning.
Click to expand...

Colin, it certainly is a bit different but not so bad if you keep at it....all the images I posted to flickr last night were with Photo Ninja.

If you need a hand drop me PM and I'll see if I can help....
 
Thanks Jeff. So it's not as good for the x20 as it is for xf then. Tbh I had come to that conclusion anyway. So much so that I have reverted to shooting jpeg with the x20 as the RAW rendition once in Lr was AWFUL!!
 
If using PN go gently with the detail slider, very easy to overcook it, takes a while getting used to the adjustments as in clicking apply at each stage

Also their academic pricing also applies to the UK, so half price if you or someone in your household is eligible
 
If any of you are using a MAC Iridient is another great option. From what Ive seen it is better than PN.
 
minnnt said:
Thanks Jeff. So it's not as good for the x20 as it is for xf then. Tbh I had come to that conclusion anyway. So much so that I have reverted to shooting jpeg with the x20 as the RAW rendition once in Lr was AWFUL!!
Click to expand...

David, not sure why you came to this conclusion? IIRC the X20 has a Xtrans sensor, unlike the X10 which as an EXR sensor (and I think so does the XF-1). There is the issue of Xtrans I vs Xtrans II though.
 
This is what aperture made of it
 
minnnt said:
Chris, was refering to Lr not being that good for the x20 files but ok for the xf1. Unless I have it wrong?
Click to expand...

Ah, gotcha! Totally misunderstood, sorry.

I have an X10 and use Aperture. I can get raws in there by converting to DNG, but the result is atrocious, so I've been shooting JPEGs except for experiments. Guess I'll be looking for a new solution soon, but if I'm going for one of the bigger Xs, looks like it better not be LR!
 
Well Lr is pretty good with the xf1 files so i assume the x10 files would be the same, but importing the raw files from the x20 they are shockingly different. The way Lr renders them is terrible. So much so that i have done some research into the best settings for shooting Jpeg with the x20. Not necessarily with regards to detail, but the colours and balance is awful. :(
 
kennysarmy said:
Put the RAW file on my drop box:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hy54ku2mny5qdpr/DSCF9636.RAF?dl=0
Click to expand...

Thanks for providing the RAF file :) I've run the file through both LR 5.6 and PN with application defaults set and...I'll be honest, I really dislike the PN image. It's massively oversharpened and the shadows/highlights look really strange revealing noise. IMO the "detail" is actually sharpened out of focus areas.

Here's my crops (note no bespoke adjustments like WB etc. - Photo Ninja first, then Lightroom 5.6 - both set to standard picture style):

View attachment 21251

View attachment 21252
 
manualfocus-g said:
Thanks for providing the RAF file :) I've run the file through both LR 5.6 and PN with application defaults set and...I'll be honest, I really dislike the PN image. It's massively oversharpened and the shadows/highlights look really strange revealing noise. IMO the "detail" is actually sharpened out of focus areas.

Here's my crops (note no bespoke adjustments like WB etc. - Photo Ninja first, then Lightroom 5.6 - both set to standard picture style):

View attachment 21251

View attachment 21252
Click to expand...
Not sure what you gain by leaving the apps at their default values though... Surely to compare you need to try and get the best out of each programme for a proper comparison.... No?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top