Fuji x series a couple of questions

lizzy23

lizzy23

Messages
2,167
Name
Liz
Edit My Images
Yes
For the last couple of days i have found myself reading and digesting a lot of the information in this section of the forum on the Fuji systems but have to confess i am a little confused by the different options and would really appreciate some advice, i currently have a 7d that i will be keeping for action shots, which is mainly of my fast spaniels, However i am very interested in a more compact system for landscapes and seem to find myself drawn to the Fujis.

1. Is this a good option for someone who wants something smaller to keep in the car on her travels (i regularly go through the lakes for work)
2. Which mid range option would anyone recommend, cant stretch to the xt pro, but there seems to be loads of options, which is best suited to the scenario i have listed above
3 Lenses - wide primes or zooms
4. filters - i have a grad filter system is it possible to still use these

i would be very grateful for any experiences of use in the above situations, thanks in advance
 
1, I'd say yes.
2. I'm very happy with my X-E2
3. Depends on the individual but I'm more than happy with my line up being 14mm, 23mm, 35mm, 60mm and 55-250. I don't always carry them all with me, depends what I am doing - I mostly use the 23mm - I picked up a Panasonic LX7 as my pocket versatile camera.
4. Yes - you just need the adapter or step up rings to allow you to use them.
 
On another note if you are a RAW shooter what do you currently use to process your images? As I and many others have had issues with a painterly effect when using the Adobe products....I'm currently trialling Photo Ninja and am getting much better results (see my recent post on the X-e1/2 thread)

Cheers
 
Thanks Jeff that's really useful information i currently use Lightroom, but am open to using others
 
Not long ago lightroom and photoshop were dire at processing Fuji RAF files, now they can even read the lens corrections embedded in the raw file. And change the film simulations. The new algorithms no longer make a pigs ear with strange artifacts. You can safely disregard all the past web wide comments.

the raw convertr supplied with photoshop cc works excellently. I am not sure that is true of the older version in the stand alone editions, which seem to miss out on many recent improvements.
 
Last edited:
cambsno said:
Never had an issue with LR.

Xpro for sale in classifieds (mine!).
Click to expand...


Going to sort some of my canon gear to sell at the weekend, i maybe back for that
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Not long ago lightroom and photoshop were dire at processing Fuji RAF files, now they can even read the lens corrections embedded in the raw file. And change the film simulations. The new algorithms no longer make a pigs ear with strange artifacts. You can safely disregard all the past web wide comments.
Click to expand...

Im not so sure thats correct, even LR5 has issues with fine details in RAW files where other software is far superior.
 
twist said:
Im not so sure thats correct, even LR5 has issues with fine details in RAW files where other software is far superior.
Click to expand...

I use the cc version and have no problems at all.
previously it was unusable.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Not long ago lightroom and photoshop were dire at processing Fuji RAF files, now they can even read the lens corrections embedded in the raw file. And change the film simulations. The new algorithms no longer make a pigs ear with strange artifacts. You can safely disregard all the past web wide comments.
.
Click to expand...

I disagree - certainly the latest Adobe Camera Raw incarnation that I am using still creates mushy fine detail especially on foliage and the like....
They can however use the film simulations as you say - but if the output in JPG or TIF is bad that's hardly going to sway me to continue getting poor quality images from the RAF files.
 
Well i picked up an XE-2 on Sat. I decided on that rather than the Xt-1 as the few bells and whistles the XT offered didnt justify the extra cost to me. They both have the same sensor so deliver the same image. Ive also got an X10 which is simply lovely for general pocket sized useage so id add the X30 to your list of things to look at in the shop too.

Lens wise i got the 23mm 1.4 which is raved about, i had the 18mm on an XE-1 ages ago and that was a cracker despite the internet having a general dislike towards it and i might pick up another copy if i can find one cheap enough. I certainly found nothing wrong with it.

Theyve all got standard sized threads so your filter system should be fine.

Software, ive always used LR and never had an issue with it.
 
1. Is this a good option for someone who wants something smaller to keep in the car on her travels (i regularly go through the lakes for work)

I'm still loving the X-Pro1 and X-T1 since they're so much more compact than my old D70 (same crop as the X series CSCs).

2. Which mid range option would anyone recommend, cant stretch to the xt pro, but there seems to be loads of options, which is best suited to the scenario i have listed above

Second hand X-Pro.

3 Lenses - wide primes or zooms

The Fuji zooms are fabulous and the 10-24 is as wide as most people will ever need. The 18-135 lives on my X-T1.

4. filters - i have a grad filter system is it possible to still use these

Yes.
 
one last question do any have live view?
 
lizzy23 said:
one last question do any have live view?
Click to expand...

All have fast live view. By fast I mean like a compact works with regards AF speed in LV, not like your 7D which will hunt for ages.
 
Last edited:
At the moment only the XT1 and X30 can use the wifi to control, focus, view and shoot the camera from a phone or tablet. but that is not a need for many.
 
kennysarmy said:
I'll gladly email you the RAW file from my post in the Xe1/2 thread to see how you get on using your CC version......
Click to expand...


I saw a public comparison test recently, using all the main Raw processors and there was a very wide spread of preferences.
In the first test Silkypix came out the strongest
In another it was the in camera raw converter that had the most votes. However 70% to 80% of the people made other choices as to which looked the best.
I rather think they are all fairly good now, each with their own supporters, but that is certainly miles from a majority winner.
I think we pay our money and take our choice.
I though CC was now good enough to invest in. As I "know" photoshop, and it is as much part of me as it is of my workflow.

Some like silkypix and it might do a good job, but the GUI is unusable. And I certainly would never do it with the in camera firmware.

If I did not use Adobe CC I would probably use Capture one. But the advantages between them is more preference than factual.

What you may not like is the sudden fall off, that you see when you exceed 100% on x-trans sensors. But no raw processor is likely to change that. Strangely as you enlarge the pixels further the details seem to be better defined and certainly usable for retouching and selecting.
 
lizzy23 said:
one last question do any have live view?
Click to expand...

The X-Pro1 has a "real" OVF which can be switched to being an EVF as well as having a rear screen to use. The X-T1 is styled like an SLR but the VF is an EVF rather than a reflex VF. It also has a rear screen for composing/reviewing. Not sure of the other models but I'm sure a look at Fuji's site would answer that question.
 
Thank you everyone who's replied I think I'm going to take the plunge and give it a go,, just need to have a look at what I can sell to fund it
 
If you're looking for a camera with liveview, don't discount the X-M1. It doesn't have a viewfinder, but if you can manage without it's a great little camera...same sensor as the X-Pro, etc and available for a really good price on the Fuji refurb site, or with a free lens if you buy new. It would allow you to try out the Fuji sensor without spending too much.
 
melaniejane said:
If you're looking for a camera with liveview, don't discount the X-M1. It doesn't have a viewfinder, but if you can manage without it's a great little camera...same sensor as the X-Pro, etc and available for a really good price on the Fuji refurb site, or with a free lens if you buy new. It would allow you to try out the Fuji sensor without spending too much.
Click to expand...


Thanks, for landscapes I tend to use live view exclusively so that would work
 
Or the X-A1 is pretty much the same camera with a traditional sensor, rather than the X-Trans found in the rest of the Fuji line up. It's a bit cheaper again, and some people prefer the look of the images. You get a different (cheaper) kit lens with the X-M1 and X-A1, but it's a perfectly respectable lens and certainly beats kit lenses supplied by most other brands.
 
Last edited:
I have both the A1 and E2, and both are very good ! A1 being the Bayer the E2 being X-trans II. Handling wise the E2 gets the thumbs up, with a very good EVF, especially with tele lens, shooting at tele end with rear lcd is not easy to get stable ! E2 has better handling of OOC JPEG s, slightly more detail in the images compared to A1, close up, images look more artificial due to compression at high iso, but still look great :)
 
Last edited:
And don't forget refurb if you're looking for a bargain.. £208 for an X-E1.. £180 for X-M1.. £225 for X-A1 and XC 16-50mm lens..
 
Here's a few side by side photos of the X-E2 vs X-A1 vs X10

2014-09-21%2013.33.17-1.jpg

2014-09-21%2013.33.46.jpg
2014-09-21%2013.35.03-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Some comparison images

X-A1 - Lens 27mm, ISO1250, F2.8, 1/80s, 100% crop
A1-police.JPG


X-E2 - Lens 27mm, ISO1250, F2.8, 1/80s, 100% crop
E2-police.JPG


X-A1 - Lens 27mm, ISO256000, F3.6, 1/2400s, 100% crop
A1-ISO256000.JPG


X-E2 - Lens 27mm, ISO256000, F3.6, 1/2000s, 100% crop (slightly different auto exposure compared to A1)
E2-ISO256000.JPG
 
Thanks so much that's a really usefull comparison
 
No probs, they're not the best comparisons, but give you some idea on the difference. First image shows A1 in camera sharpness (over cooked), and you can see on the smooth curved surfaces the difference in rendering, the second shows very high ISO Handling, and the difference in what noise looks like, E2 (x-trans sensor) to me does look more film like :)
 
The xa1 has always been praised for the way it handles noise and if a viewfinder isn't a high priority then the xa/xm makes a strong case as they're very good value, especially if you can get them on the free lens offer.
 
Totally agree, also has the tilting screen which is a big bonus, they both have there qualities :)
 
One last comparison, is to do with focusing in low light, the shots aren't great, but the A1 does suffer in low light to focus, and as you can see, the viewed image is very dim compared to the E2 !

A1 before focusing

2014-09-24%2023.45.19.jpg


A1 while focusing

2014-09-24%2023.31.33.jpg


E2 before focusing

2014-09-24%2023.42.02.jpg


E2 while focusing

2014-09-24%2023.32.31.jpg
 
Last edited:
Thanks lee am away so haven't had the chance to respond, if I'm looking at that right the e2 is better focusing in low light?
 
Yes that's right, for some reason the A1 struggles in low light as you can see, was in my living room with lights dimmed. I put it down to slow lens as my x10 was similar to the E2 and has a fast lens, but I'm using the same slow lens on the E2 and its focuses no problem in a dimmed room ! My sister in law has the A1 and thats the same too, so can't be a fault with the camera. I'm sure it can be fixed in a software update ?
 
Last edited:
The X-A1 struggles in low light compared to the X-E2 because they're very different cameras inside. Different sensor, different processor, very different focussing method. It's hardware, not firmware.

There's a reason that one costs a couple of hundred pounds more than the other ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top