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

Thanks, works as I expected then as a film mode is not really any different than say a B+W setting which has never been applied to a RAW file in any previous camera.

As you say, RAW + JPEG would be a good choice as I like the film modes and B+W with filters but do tend to use RAW when it is available (although this may prove annoying as Apple is not supporting X10 RAW yet)
 
Sorry if this is a really obvious question - why use the B&W setting on the x10 when you can have a colour shot and PP the B&W whenever you want?
 
souldeep said:
Sorry if this is a really obvious question - why use the B&W setting on the x10 when you can have a colour shot and PP the B&W whenever you want?
Click to expand...

If your intention is to finish up with a mono picture then seeing it in mono from the off makes more sense.

Shoot mono in raw and you can always convert to colour later. ;)
 
souldeep said:
Sorry if this is a really obvious question - why use the B&W setting on the x10 when you can have a colour shot and PP the B&W whenever you want?
Click to expand...

I use B+W 75% of the time and if a particular camera can produce nice B+W JPEGs then makes sense to use B+W for the shots I want in B+W.
I know if I am going to want colour based on what I am photographing so just use the RAW file* or switch to colour.

On the X10 I have set the Fn button to Film Mode to suit my purposes.

*Unfortunately RAW processing is a bit of a problem as I have a MAC which doesn't yet recognise X10 RAW. Tried using SilkyPix which takes around 10 seconds to process any changes so is pretty unusable. Just shows how well iPhoto (a free base MAC app) works as it handle RAW files pretty much as quickly as JPEG.
 
Hi all,

Sorry to bump this question, but thought it may have got lost in some other discussion.

Regards,
Steve

I've had some great shots with the X10 but last night was my first disappointment. I took some night time shots in EXR and pro low light mode and they all consistently over exposed. All highlights blown to bits and generally bad images. In aperture mode I needed to drop two stops. Anyone seem this?
 
Its here - I'm offically an x10 owner :)

Extra battery was also included - touch!

Bring on Wales and the weekend.
 
@duncan: i cant hardly believe how you were able to get the shadows back. congrats!! i tried some days ago raw again, but wasnt happy with it, because i couldnt get the highlights back. so sit seems i have to try your way, and take more of the highlights then of the shadow. is tree nr. 2 also printable like that? (its really a very nic pic)
 
Wandarr said:
@duncan: i cant hardly believe how you were able to get the shadows back. congrats!! i tried some days ago raw again, but wasnt happy with it, because i couldnt get the highlights back. so sit seems i have to try your way, and take more of the highlights then of the shadow. is tree nr. 2 also printable like that? (its really a very nic pic)
Click to expand...

Short answer is yes!
After some pixel peeping on a calibrated monitor I can confidently say that it is good enough for A3. There are no obvious artefacts in the shadows despite my abuse of the LR4 sliders.

I had a think about whether I overcooked my PP, and the tree lacks punch in the blacks.
Looking at the histogram the blacks were not clipping, so I lowered the blacks slider and that has fixed it completely; nice and punchy.
The sky looks fine.
The only other thing I spotted is the left-most fence post has a tiny bit of chromatic aberration (cyan fringe on the left, magenta on the right). Probably won't be noticeable on a print, but is just spottable at 100%.
LR4 doesn't have CA slider adjustment sliders, it just has a toggle on/off - it worked a treat!

The first time I noticed the blacks being so good was processing some recent concert images.
I'd generally been exposing in the same way as my 5DII; so that the highlights blew slightly on the camera screen for recovery in RAW.
It wasn't terribly successful as the recovered highlights never looked totally natural.
But on one shot I'd accidentally underexposed by about three stops (I was in full manual).
The highlights were perfectly exposed needing only a tiny play with LR4 to look great. But the rest of the venue was totally blocked in shadows - rubbish.
But the LR4 sliders recovered the shadows well enough that placing the two differently exposed images next to each other I can't tell which is which except for the dodgy highlights!!!!

I need to do some more experimentation.
I've got two nights of full-on concert photography ahead of me so I should get ample images to try this out in fairly extreme lighting.

This time the X10 is going up against the big guns....
Last concert I had the 60D on the 70-200 f4 IS and the 5DII on the 50mm f1.4; but the 5DII didn't get much use and rarely got pushed over ISO 1000 whereas the 60D got lots of abuse at ISO 3200 which is pushing things harder than I really wanted.
So this weekend I'm swapping them over - 60D gets the f1.4 and the 5DII gets to take the bulk of the shots on the long lens. I'll miss the extra reach but will take the 1.4TC in case I need it badly enough to lose a stop of light.
Where's the X10?
It's taking everything that is not on the long lens or the 50mm f1.4 - experience tells me that will be about half the number of shots taken with the long lens; loads of shots !!!!!
 
stevebuk said:
Hi all,

Sorry to bump this question, but thought it may have got lost in some other discussion.

Regards,
Steve

I've had some great shots with the X10 but last night was my first disappointment. I took some night time shots in EXR and pro low light mode and they all consistently over exposed. All highlights blown to bits and generally bad images. In aperture mode I needed to drop two stops. Anyone seem this?
Click to expand...

I suspect you have not had a reply as there is nothing solid to reply to....
Can you post one of the shots with the metadata intact?
And are you getting the same problem in P-mode?
 
Here's a couple from today... Both shot in RAW and converted in CS5.

DSCF8130webedittp.jpg


DSCF8134webedittp.jpg
 
@duncan thx alot for the lenghy answer. seems like i have to give raw from the x10 in combination with LR4 a try again. till now i could not sqeeze out more details out of them and was happy with jpgs most of the time. on the other hand i feld, that it was alway a compromise to use them: large images but, 400iso with dr400, or iso 200 with dr 200, or 100 iso with dr400 but medium size. (hmhm. other problem: for the streets or even concerts or performances: the x10 become quite slow with rawas, aspecialy when use have to adjust something. wish you good luck with your concert shootings and i am very curious about your results:

here some of the last theater visit:

DSCF7594-2.jpg


DSCF7571-2.jpg


DSCF7548-21.jpg
 
My guru always says "Expose for the faces, everything else can look after itself".
I reckon you got the exposure nailed (y)

She also says "Capture performers at the peak of their emotion, it may not be pretty but it will be a better image"

Trying to do both those is like trying to rub your head and pat your tummy at the same time :)
 
Simon - your pictures never cease to amaze me. The cottage is so vibrant in colour :love:

A question for those of you using the manual zoom.

I've noticed that as I turn the zoom from 28 to 35 the lens actually comes towards the camera and then extends back from 50 through to 112. Do you all get the same movement? Doesn’t seem logical to me as the lens should be more extended at 35 than 28.
 
souldeep said:
A question for those of you using the manual zoom.

I've noticed that as I turn the zoom from 28 to 35 the lens actually comes towards the camera and then extends back from 50 through to 112. Do you all get the same movement? Doesn’t seem logical to me as the lens should be more extended at 35 than 28.
Click to expand...

My LX3 was exactly the same.....
and yes - it does seem odd!
 
I think most, if not all, zooms in this sort of range do the same. There's probably an optical reason for it.
 
Strange - but thanks for the confirmation all. Was just concerned it was some issue with my specific model.

Wales tomorrow - first stop Tenby and will break open the X10. Batteries are charged and its loaded with an 18GB SDHC class 10 memory card.

I think I will mainly use the auto mode so I don't mess up the pictures. Will also try the adv mode with a few panoramas as well.

unsure whether to try the EXR mode though. Any of you recommend I try Velvia or have you been disappointed as I see most of you using RAW.

Any other tips/oddities you can offer a virgin X10 user to make life a bit easier and more exciting?
 
Last edited:
I am very impressed with the JPEGs (which is a good job as RAW processing is horrendous using my only option of Silkypix)

EXR seems to work very well and you get the benefit of "two shots merged into one" dynamic range stuff.
You can also get this by setting DR on P,A,S,M as long as you use M size. This is what I have done so far and again, very impressed with results.
Only had it a couple of days but this is the first camera I have had where I just had no reason to make any changes to the photo whatsoever (outside of cropping). This was for outdoor shots in good light.
 
Thanks - will maybe try that as well then. I like the idea of the camera taking one under and one over exposed image then merging them to increase dynamic range.
 
souldeep said:
and its loaded with an 18GB SDHC class 10 memory card.
Click to expand...

"oh no it isn't" ;)
Spose it could be a 32 with some protected files though hmmm
 
Noticed on another section that an X10 owner has dust in the lens. Is this a common problem?

Al
 
A lot of you chat about using Velvia mode. How do you set this up, please? I've tried EXR mode but now use the mode with a camera icon for point and shoot. I'm a newbie in using anything point and shoot.
 
phototuition said:
I too have tiny specs of dust between lens elements.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should give it another/better oggle. But then again, what would a few tiny specs of dust cause? A wee bit of CA perhaps? I can't imagine it having any noticeable effect on photos.
 
Thankfully I don't have dust in my lens but the darn gaps around the filter adaptor allow dust to get in between the lens and the filter. I really cannot fathom the intention of Fuji's designers in coming up with this design bar a burning desire to favour form over function. And while on the matter of design, once you attach the hood onto the filter thread, you need to source a cap with a 52mm thread since the supplied cap won't fit. I find these idiosyncrasies distract a little from what is otherwise a very attractive and fun-filled camera.
 
Thanks ;)

Re the hood it comes in 2 parts the adapter and hood. Unscrew the adapter, put your filter on then find a lens cap and use the hood like any other normal hood....
 
Mirus Lux said:
Thanks ;)

Re the hood it comes in 2 parts the adapter and hood. Unscrew the adapter, put your filter on then find a lens cap and use the hood like any other normal hood....
Click to expand...


Thanks Rob

Indeed perhaps the manual Fuji produced ought to have been clearer on this or perhaps they were just looking to justify selling the adaptor as part of the lens hood package. It said in the manual to mount a 52mm filter onto the adaptor which is connected to the lens and finally the hood is connected to the filter. Instead I could have bought a 49mm filter, attach this to the lens and the hood onto this, omitting the adaptor altogether.

I suppose if you are going to charge £60 for the hood and adaptor combo unit, you have to justify the cost somewhat. Bad bad Fuji :nono:

Notwithstanding the RAW files being unreadable by iPhoto and I imagine Aperture, the camera is still first rate though.


Keep the pictures coming friend (y)
 
Houston1863 said:
Indeed perhaps the manual Fuji produced ought to have been clearer on this or perhaps they were just looking to justify selling the adaptor as part of the lens hood package. It said in the manual to mount a 52mm filter onto the adaptor which is connected to the lens and finally the hood is connected to the filter. Instead I could have bought a 49mm filter, attach this to the lens and the hood onto this, omitting the adaptor altogether.

I suppose if you are going to charge £60 for the hood and adaptor combo unit, you have to justify the cost somewhat. Bad bad Fuji :nono:
Click to expand...

Need to read back on this thread to confirm...
But IIRC you will get vignetting with a 49mm accessories.

I use a JJC adapter and hood from eBay - does the trick for me although I only ever use it with my IR filter. The X10 seems so resistant to flare that most of the time there's no point putting the hood on...
 
DuncanDisorderly said:
Need to read back on this thread to confirm...
But IIRC you will get vignetting with a 49mm accessories.

I use a JJC adapter and hood from eBay - does the trick for me although I only ever use it with my IR filter. The X10 seems so resistant to flare that most of the time there's no point putting the hood on...
Click to expand...


Thanks for your kind response Duncan

I've since reread the manual which states that " filters cannot be attached directly to the camera " ( or indeed lens ). Thus the need for the adaptor. It's a pity though that Fuji have not supplied a cap with the hood assembly. Instead once has to unmount the unit which may be stored in the nice pouch that is supplied as part of the £60 deal.

I suppose this is the price of going ' retro '. Again, a secondary cap would have been very useful.


Edit - I have just spoken with Fuji who kindly advised that a 52mm cap could be sourced to mount onto the filter or a larger push on cap over the hood. I think the former is easier to locate. They were also very kind to arrange to send me a spare battery as one didn't come with my refurbished unit so I'm now sheepishly withdrawing my ' bad bad ' remark of earlier.

Nice nice people at Fuji UK :wave:
 
Last edited:
Putting the X10's pano feature to good use again yesterday on CadWest! :)

DSCF8139resizetp.jpg
 
Hi all,

I posted a couple of days ago about having issues at night using pro low light and EXR auto. All is well when I switch to P or A. These were shot in Moscow earlier this week and all three look terrible.

1) EXR Auto


DSCF0286 by Steve Babb, on Flickr

2) Pro Low Light


DSCF0282 by Steve Babb, on Flickr

3) EXR Auto


DSCF0280 by Steve Babb, on Flickr

I'd appreciate any comments?


Regards,
Steve
 
Only had my X10 for a few days but I have noticed that I quite often need to lower the highlights quite a bit to get the detail back into the photo. Not totally over exposed as such as I don't need to touch the exposure. Just tried it on your last photo and it improves it quite a bit.
 
TiggyWink said:
Still no response to my request for help using Velvia mode! Anyone, please???
Click to expand...

It's in the shooting menu.

Scroll own to Film Simulation, select that then down to the Velvia film icon and select that.

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top