The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

My move to Fuji X-T1 is getting more expensive by the day! Just bought Capture 1 as it is so dramatically superior to ACR/LR/PS for raw development. I wonder what else I'm going to have to cough up for.
 
Barrysprout said:
Was just checking if my old laptop was up to a little Lightroom editing and processed this Samyang 8mm shot from a couple of months back.
Click to expand...
Nice shot and processing.

I have one of these lenses in a corner, which I must get round to selling one day as I just don't use it.
 
Just on my earlier comments about being limited to ISO 6400.

I asked over at DPR (more people there...) and someone gave me a X-T1 ISO 6400 raw file with -2 compensation dialled in, the theory being that this would allow a faster shutter speed and the file could then be boosted +2 post capture to get the same sort of shutter speed settings and capture you'd get from a camera with the option of shooting at 25,600. If you follow me...

Anyway, I downloaded the file and converted it to DNG and boosted it +2 and applied my normal sharpness and noise reduction and to me the results look very good, so good that I do wonder why Fuji don't include a couple of stops over and above ISO 6400. I've certainly seen worse raw files.

Underexposing by a stop or two or three isn't ideal and I don't know what that'll do to the view in the VF but the files certainly don't fall apart and this could be a work around for me or anyone else who may be a little peeved at being limited to ISO 6400.

Here's the shot and a 100% crop of what seems to have been the point of focus.





PS. Just out of interest I've just tried doing the same with my Panny G1 and GX7.

The Panny G1 only goes to 3200 and underexposing and boosting produced a horrible mess.

With the GX7 I tried setting the ISO to 6400 and dialling in -2 to give f4 and 1/200 as per the Fuji and then -3. The GX7 files stood up well to boosting. The -2 shot I thought was very similar to the Fuji and the -3 shot although maybe worse would be useable with only a little effort. I also shot the same scene at ISO 25,600 again at f4 with a shutter speed of 1/200

Dunno if this helps anyone but what I take from it is that the Fuji files can be under exposed by two stops and boosted post capture and still produce a useable image but I'm not too sure if there's any significant improvement over my GX7. To be certain I'd need a Fuji and GX7 side by side to match aperture and shutter speeds to iron out any differences in what the manufacturers think the ISO settings should be.

Hmmm.
 
Last edited:
Well back home with them havnt had good chance to tried them both out,but the 16-55 i can handle that weight,the 50-140 not to bad the IS is really very good,hopefully will get out over the weekend with them.

Money wise :eek:,a diet of dead seagulls & rainwater for a couple of mths :D
 
DonnaM said:
My move to Fuji X-T1 is getting more expensive by the day! Just bought Capture 1 as it is so dramatically superior to ACR/LR/PS for raw development. I wonder what else I'm going to have to cough up for.
Click to expand...

Hi @DonnaM , is this the full 229 euro version or is there a cheaper one?
 
Peter B said:
Hi @DonnaM , is this the full 229 euro version or is there a cheaper one?
Click to expand...
The full €229 +VAT version, you do get a 30 day trial but I have found the results so much better than ACR for Fuji, and my old Nikon files and Hubby swears by it for Canon too.
 
DonnaM said:
The full €229 +VAT version, you do get a 30 day trial but I have found the results so much better than ACR for Fuji, and my old Nikon files and Hubby swears by it for Canon too.
Click to expand...

Thanks Donna, I didn't realise there was VAT to add on as well! :(
 
Peter B said:
Thanks Donna, I didn't realise there was VAT to add on as well! :(
Click to expand...
Neither did I till it was too late. I still use LR/PS for cataloguing and editing which make the workflow a little tedious but I still think it's worth it.
 
woof woof said:
Just on my earlier comments about being limited to ISO 6400.

I asked over at DPR (more people there...) and someone gave me a X-T1 ISO 6400 raw file with -2 compensation dialled in, the theory being that this would allow a faster shutter speed and the file could then be boosted +2 post capture to get the same sort of shutter speed settings and capture you'd get from a camera with the option of shooting at 25,600. If you follow me...

Anyway, I downloaded the file and converted it to DNG and boosted it +2 and applied my normal sharpness and noise reduction and to me the results look very good, so good that I do wonder why Fuji don't include a couple of stops over and above ISO 6400. I've certainly seen worse raw files.

Underexposing by a stop or two or three isn't ideal and I don't know what that'll do to the view in the VF but the files certainly don't fall apart and this could be a work around for me or anyone else who may be a little peeved at being limited to ISO 6400.

Here's the shot and a 100% crop of what seems to have been the point of focus.





PS. Just out of interest I've just tried doing the same with my Panny G1 and GX7.

The Panny G1 only goes to 3200 and underexposing and boosting produced a horrible mess.

With the GX7 I tried setting the ISO to 6400 and dialling in -2 to give f4 and 1/200 as per the Fuji and then -3. The GX7 files stood up well to boosting. The -2 shot I thought was very similar to the Fuji and the -3 shot although maybe worse would be useable with only a little effort. I also shot the same scene at ISO 25,600 again at f4 with a shutter speed of 1/200

Dunno if this helps anyone but what I take from it is that the Fuji files can be under exposed by two stops and boosted post capture and still produce a useable image but I'm not too sure if there's any significant improvement over my GX7. To be certain I'd need a Fuji and GX7 side by side to match aperture and shutter speeds to iron out any differences in what the manufacturers think the ISO settings should be.

Hmmm.
Click to expand...

I think that looks better than my 60d at 3200 by quite a bit.....
 
AdamTudor said:
I think that looks better than my 60d at 3200 by quite a bit.....
Click to expand...

When taking another look at this X-T10 shot and how my GX7 shots look both at the max ISO and after under exposing by -2 and boosting post capture I was impressed that they compare very well to my 5D shots.

I think that things have moved on a lot in recent years and that cameras with newer MFT and APS-C sensors can give cameras with larger sensors but maybe a generation or so older real competition.
 
Capture One @229 euros plus VAT pretty much comes to £195. The Adobe/Fujifilm offer is still running until July @ £7.28/month for the first year or £87.36, then up to £102 for the second year, so roughly identical costs for the next 2 years. A lot of the internet angst on Adobe and X-tran files seems to be from 2014, so would I be correct in thinking the performance is better now?

https://creative.adobe.com/promo/FujiFilmCCPP?sdid=KPWDO
 
Had a chance to try the 18 and 35 today, jeez things have moved on quickly. They feel very clunky, noisy and slow compared to the 16 and 23. Massive cost difference of course (and the 18 and 35 still take lovely photos), but just surprised how much things have changed in such a short space of time.
 
ukaskew said:
Had a chance to try the 18 and 35 today, jeez things have moved on quickly. They feel very clunky, noisy and slow compared to the 16 and 23. Massive cost difference of course (and the 18 and 35 still take lovely photos), but just surprised how much things have changed in such a short space of time.
Click to expand...

The 35 is a chugger alright! I've had no problems with the 18 though, it was always the fastest of the old guard :)
 
woof woof said:
Just on my earlier comments about being limited to ISO 6400.

I asked over at DPR (more people there...) and someone gave me a X-T1 ISO 6400 raw file with -2 compensation dialled in, the theory being that this would allow a faster shutter speed and the file could then be boosted +2 post capture to get the same sort of shutter speed settings and capture you'd get from a camera with the option of shooting at 25,600. If you follow me...

Anyway, I downloaded the file and converted it to DNG and boosted it +2 and applied my normal sharpness and noise reduction and to me the results look very good, so good that I do wonder why Fuji don't include a couple of stops over and above ISO 6400. I've certainly seen worse raw files.

Underexposing by a stop or two or three isn't ideal and I don't know what that'll do to the view in the VF but the files certainly don't fall apart and this could be a work around for me or anyone else who may be a little peeved at being limited to ISO 6400.

Here's the shot and a 100% crop of what seems to have been the point of focus.





PS. Just out of interest I've just tried doing the same with my Panny G1 and GX7.

The Panny G1 only goes to 3200 and underexposing and boosting produced a horrible mess.

With the GX7 I tried setting the ISO to 6400 and dialling in -2 to give f4 and 1/200 as per the Fuji and then -3. The GX7 files stood up well to boosting. The -2 shot I thought was very similar to the Fuji and the -3 shot although maybe worse would be useable with only a little effort. I also shot the same scene at ISO 25,600 again at f4 with a shutter speed of 1/200

Dunno if this helps anyone but what I take from it is that the Fuji files can be under exposed by two stops and boosted post capture and still produce a useable image but I'm not too sure if there's any significant improvement over my GX7. To be certain I'd need a Fuji and GX7 side by side to match aperture and shutter speeds to iron out any differences in what the manufacturers think the ISO settings should be.

Hmmm.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what setting the ISO dial to 256k does, which is why you don't get a raw file.
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
That's exactly what setting the ISO dial to 256k does, which is why you don't get a raw file.
Click to expand...

Maybe but I'd much prefer a raw file no matter how nice the JPEG's may be.

I am tempted but from what I've read the ISO is a bit out so ISO 6400 wont be what it is from other cameras and will instead be something less. I could shoot at much lower ISO's with a wider aperture but with my current cameras I've got used to shooting raw at higher ISO's with the lens stopped down a bit to get deeper DoF. I think that all in all being "limited" (we're spoilt these days...) to something like ISO 3200/6400 might be just one more thing to annoy me. If Fuji offer higher ISO's + the ability to shoot raw at them either with a firmware update or in a new camera I might well be even more tempted.
 
Peter B said:
Capture One @229 euros plus VAT pretty much comes to £195. The Adobe/Fujifilm offer is still running until July @ £7.28/month for the first year or £87.36, then up to £102 for the second year, so roughly identical costs for the next 2 years. A lot of the internet angst on Adobe and X-tran files seems to be from 2014, so would I be correct in thinking the performance is better now?

https://creative.adobe.com/promo/FujiFilmCCPP?sdid=KPWDO
Click to expand...
No! It is just the same. ACR output is flat and soft compared with Capture 1. The only downside to C1 is its PS integration or lack thereof unless you are satisfied with .tif files.
 
DonnaM said:
No! It is just the same. ACR output is flat and soft compared with Capture 1. The only downside to C1 is its PS integration or lack thereof unless you are satisfied with .tif files.
Click to expand...

Thanks Donna, obviously need to take time to maybe try out C1 and see how I get on with it. :ty:
 
ACR output is indeed a bit flat and soft by default. I apply defaults at import which apply masked sharpening and an increase in vibrance, problem solved. The real issue with acr is the occasional fine detail artifacts e.g. halos. Capture 1 does a better job with these, but it only happens occasionally for me.
 
manualfocus-g said:
ACR output is indeed a bit flat and soft by default. I apply defaults at import which apply masked sharpening and an increase in vibrance, problem solved. The real issue with acr is the occasional fine detail artifacts e.g. halos. Capture 1 does a better job with these, but it only happens occasionally for me.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I guess I have to spend more time processing the raw files, and maybe even try the supplied Silkypix converter on a few.
 
chrism_scotland said:
True I guess! I'll see how I get on I might consider swapping it out for a couple of primes to get the benefit of the size, I'd love to have the 16-55 too but can't afford everything (and my D800)
Click to expand...

Took mine out today,it was ok not as heavy as thought it was going to be,very fast on focusing lovely lens to use :)
 
Over the next 3 week, it's Head Office v Ops at football (each Tuesday). I am unable to attend the 1st 2 but will be there fort the 3rd game (9th June) so plan to give the 55-200 a real test. Just wish vr4 firmware was available before then.
 
I won't bore you with LOADS of photo's but here are a select few from today.

I shot in JPEG today and tbh i am a bit disappointed with the output. Nevermind, know better for next time! For some reason shooting in JPEG has killed the exif data on Flickr. Majority are taken with 50-140 but there are a few in there taken with the 23. Bet you can't guess which ones.

So... 1/15...

Blancpain Endurance Series - Silverstone 2015 by David Raynham, on Flickr


On It by David Raynham, on Flickr


Blancpain Endurance Series - Silverstone 2015 by David Raynham, on Flickr


Blancpain Endurance Series - Silverstone 2015 by David Raynham, on Flickr


Blancpain Endurance Series - Silverstone 2015 by David Raynham, on Flickr


Blancpain Endurance Series - Silverstone 2015 by David Raynham, on Flickr


Blancpain Endurance Series - Silverstone 2015 by David Raynham, on Flickr


Blancpain Endurance Series - Silverstone 2015 by David Raynham, on Flickr
 
Gotta say, for someone that only shoots ginger kids you've done well :clap:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top