The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

macvisual said:
psybear (Brian);

How do you find shooting the XF16-55mm compared to the XF18-55mm at all...?

regards;
Peter
Click to expand...

At risk of stating the obvious Peter - it's a lot bigger and heavier to carry around than the X-T10 + 18-55 combo that I had before it. However still far more portable than my D800 plus any single lens, so it still fulfils my need for a relatively portable solution. I sold my vastly under-used Fuji14mm at the same time as I acquired the 16-55mm however as I couldn't justify keeping it for another 2mm. I think/hope where the 16-55mm will come into its own though will be when I'm using it at f/2.8 - either for astro or just low-light indoors. I've already gone into my Fuji journey on this forum so I won't go into ti all again but for me and my style of photography, and for the job I need this combo to do, it seems perfect so far.
 
Thinking about an nd filter for longer exposures.
If you could have only one, what strength would you go for?

I already have a Cpl so can always stack for an extra 1-2 stops...
 
jimmyjamjojo said:
Thinking about an nd filter for longer exposures.
If you could have only one, what strength would you go for?

I already have a Cpl so can always stack for an extra 1-2 stops...
Click to expand...
General consensus seems to be a 3 and/or a 6, particularly for sunrise or sunset (blue or golden hours). I went straight for a 10 as I'm more likely to be shooting in the middle of the day.

Still not used it in anger yet!
 
Ian W said:
General consensus seems to be a 3 and/or a 6, particularly for sunrise or sunset (blue or golden hours). I went straight for a 10 as I'm more likely to be shooting in the middle of the day.

Still not used it in anger yet!
Click to expand...
I figured a 10 was the default and weaker ones would be for niche use, but you echo what i've read...
I guess maybe a 6 would be good for me, can always stack to take it up to 8 or so... If it agrees with me I can always trade up to a quality 10 later I suppose...
 
jimmyjamjojo said:
I figured a 10 was the default and weaker ones would be for niche use, but you echo what i've read...
I guess maybe a 6 would be good for me, can always stack to take it up to 8 or so... If it agrees with me I can always trade up to a quality 10 later I suppose...
Click to expand...
Totally. I swayed between a 6 & 3 or a 10 and went with the 10 for cost primarily. I ended up with a Hitech Firecrest 10 stopper but only because they were 50% off at the time [emoji3]
 
BacktotheFuji said:
I have one of the 10 stoppers from SRB, but still need more during the day when the sun's out, even in winter :eek:
Click to expand...
I know you can get bigger, such as a 13 or 16 stopper. I'll see how I get on and determine whether to get a 3 or 6 to stack with the 10 to cover the occasions I need it.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
The SRB 10 stopper has quite a significant Magenta colour cast.

I've invested (heavily) in the Hitech Firecrest Range and havd 3,6,10,13 and 16 stops. All very good (and neutral filters). The 13 and 16 stop require a bit more setting up, as (usually) you cannot AF through them!
Click to expand...

Hi David

Be intersting to know which your most used filters are?
 
Ian W said:
Hi David

Be intersting to know which your most used filters are?
Click to expand...

Probably 13 stop. 16 stop is a bit of a special use as it really lengthens an exposure 1 min on 13 stop becomes 8 mins on 16 stop!!! But sometimes you need more stops to make more movement in the sky.

Unless I'm shooting dawn/dusk, I often find that 10 stops is not enough. 6 is useful for dawn/dusk or slow moving water, 3 is useful for fast moving water.

eg 3 stops

170204 Tryfan by Mr Perceptive X100, on Flickr

But look at difference here in sky movement between 13 and 16 stops, I know they are different FOV, but the principle is the same and they were taken about 5 mins apart.

170129 West Kirby Marina 2 by Mr Perceptive X100, on Flickr


170129 West Kirby Marina 1 by Mr Perceptive X100, on Flickr
 
That's quite a difference between the 13 and 16 then. Looks like I may be after a 3 or a 6 to stack with the 10 at some point.
 
I have the Lee Six and 10 stoppers. I find that they cover most situations adequately for me. Interestingly the D800 needs to be focused first before fitting the ten stop and there's nothing to see via Live view once it's on. But the X-T2 sees right through it.

On the subject of filters, I've never had any issues using my 0.9 soft grad with my Nikon lenses even wide open. But when I tried to use it with the X-T2 and 16-55 I got very severe vignetting!

Oh another wee thing - I missed the eyepiece cover that I close on the Nikon for long exposures to stop light bleed. But maybe I don't need it with the Fuji (one of the more techie folk on here can advise I'm sure...)
 
psybear said:
Oh another wee thing - I missed the eyepiece cover that I close on the Nikon for long exposures to stop light bleed. But maybe I don't need it with the Fuji (one of the more techie folk on here can advise I'm sure...)
Click to expand...

No need for it Brian, there is no path from the viewfinder to the sensor for light to travel (unless you have a very faulty camera)
 
psybear said:
I have the Lee Six and 10 stoppers. I find that they cover most situations adequately for me. Interestingly the D800 needs to be focused first before fitting the ten stop and there's nothing to see via Live view once it's on. But the X-T2 sees right through it.
Click to expand...

I was always stunned to see how well the XT2 focused through a 10 stop filter, as you say the D800 wouldn't do it, I've noticed my Pentax seems to be fine with it though, must be a Nikon quirk!
 
dave.hallett said:
More nocturnal street photography, this time with a 50mm Pentax 1.7 on the Lens Turbo II. I like the flare control on this lens. Unfortunately it came with a small amount of fungus, so if I can't get it open to clean it, I'll have to get another. Fortunately, they're not exactly expensive :).


The many-coloured lights of London by David Hallett, on Flickr
Click to expand...
They're a nice lens, but I've never tried the Lens Turbo. This is a colourful street scene shot well.
 
Stephen L said:
They're a nice lens, but I've never tried the Lens Turbo. This is a colourful street scene shot well.
Click to expand...
Thanks Stephen! My older K-mount SMC 1.4 won't reach infinity because the rear element hits the front of the LTII, whereas the M series don't have this issue. I've also heard that the ability of the reducer to concentrate light is in some way limited by the sensor at around f/1.1, although I must confess I don't understand what's going on there. If so, then there's very little reason to shell out for a 1.4, as the 1.7 will get you to the equivalent of f/1.2 anyway. Comparing this with the SMC Takumar 55mm 1.8, I don't think there's much in it at all, but the M 1.7 might just get the nod for better flare control.
 
A few from a brisk (and bloody cold!) walk today at Milford on sea. There wasn't much there and i had all but given up, when i looked back and saw a woman pull up on a bike followed by a flock of swans... I'm guessing she feeds them regularly.

Swans by jimmyjamjoejoe, on Flickr

After that I moved on and was heading back to the car, having seen nothing else of note. At this point I saw another tog crouching down, resting her point and shoot on a rock... There was an egret just the other side of the water. Seriously, how do i miss these things?!
Different processing for me, but I like the dark and moody tones with the shining bird. Also very much like the horizontal lines.

Egret 1 by jimmyjamjoejoe, on Flickr

Egret 2 by jimmyjamjoejoe, on Flickr

Egret 3 by jimmyjamjoejoe, on Flickr


Again i find myself unimpressed with my copy of the 55-200 though... these haven't been cropped much and were stopped down a touch. I dunno, maybe I'm just expecting too much.
 
So all youse X-T2 shooters, compared to the X-T1 (which I'm loving), apart from the obvious 'more mega pixels'........is it worth owning one...?

Regards;
Peter
 
Last edited:
macvisual said:
So all youse X-T2 shooters, compared to the X-T1 (which I'm loving), apart from the obvious 'more mega pixels'........is it worth owning one...?

Regards;
Peter
Click to expand...


For me it depends on what you are shooting Peter. If you shooting any sort of action or kids the reduce blackout time and the best AF does make it worth having one. But if you are more of a single shot shooter of more static subjects except for the increase in mega pixels its more doubtful if its worth the upgrade.
 
Thanks for the replies....appreciated.

I'm probably more of a single shot/static subject shooter to be honest. I really enjoy the XT1, not sure if the XT2 would be a worthwhile beneficial upgrade, or; spend the money on quality XF glass....?....and if so, which? I've a budget of £1250.

The XF16mm f/1.4 seems interesting (24mm ff equivalent), fast glass and waterproof, anyone here use one..?

I've these XF lenses; 10-24 -- 18-55 -- 56 -- 55-200

Decisions decisions....
 
Last edited:
macvisual said:
So all youse X-T2 shooters, compared to the X-T1 (which I'm loving), apart from the obvious 'more mega pixels'........is it worth owning one...?

Regards;
Peter
Click to expand...
As has already been said, if you're into action etc then definitely yes. And the joystick is a worthwhile tool. But, in hindsight being a landscape shooter, would I buy it again in preference to a T1? Possibly not. I don't pixel-peep. Don't look for detail in leaves at 2 miles. Go for the feel of a photo rather than out-and-out quality. Seldom print larger than A3+. So I'm now ready to be shot down in flames! As regards the 16mm. Had one, sold it, wish I still had it. My life is full of buyers and sellers remorse.
 
macvisual said:
Thanks for the replies....appreciated.

I'm probably more of a single shot/static subject shooter to be honest. I really enjoy the XT1, not sure if the XT2 would be a worthwhile beneficial upgrade, or; spend the money on quality XF glass....?....and if so, which? I've a budget of £1250.

The XF16mm f/1.4 seems interesting (24mm ff equivalent), fast glass and waterproof, anyone here use one..?

I've these XF lenses; 10-24 -- 18-55 -- 56 -- 55-200

Decisions decisions....
Click to expand...
It's going to depend on what you think you missing really and what you planning to shoot. Do you need the fast aperture of the 16mm. If not you probaly not going going to notice much of difference between that and the 10-24.
 
Last edited:
yamahatdm900 said:
It's going to depend on what you think you missing really and what you planning to shoot. Do you need the fast aperture of the 16mm. If not you probaly not going going to notice much of difference between that and the 10-24.
Click to expand...

This
 
Stephen L said:
As has already been said, if you're into action etc then definitely yes. And the joystick is a worthwhile tool. But, in hindsight being a landscape shooter, would I buy it again in preference to a T1? Possibly not. I don't pixel-peep. Don't look for detail in leaves at 2 miles. Go for the feel of a photo rather than out-and-out quality. Seldom print larger than A3+. So I'm now ready to be shot down in flames! As regards the 16mm. Had one, sold it, wish I still had it. My life is full of buyers and sellers remorse.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on this one. When I look at some of my photo full screen on my 27 inch monitor it is not as great as I think (due to slightly high iso etc). When I come to print (not bigger then A4), it is all good. I'm happy with my XT1, altho it is pretty had to shoot fast moving kids, but i think i can tweak my technique a bit to work with that.
 
badboy1984 said:
I'm with you on this one. When I look at some of my photo full screen on my 27 inch monitor it is not as great as I think (due to slightly high iso etc). When I come to print (not bigger then A4), it is all good. I'm happy with my XT1, altho it is pretty had to shoot fast moving kids, but i think i can tweak my technique a bit to work with that.
Click to expand...
As long as drugging the kids isn't your new technique . Don't waste your drugs save the drugs for bedtime! ;) Yeah it's not the fastest for kids i'm in the same boat.
 
Last edited:
G.K.Jnr. said:
Just a simple shot taken when I was back home at downtown Nashville TN of The Music City Star with a little bit of info about the train service.

The Music City Star is a commuter rail service running between Nashville and Lebanon, Tennessee. The service uses the existing track of the Nashville and Eastern Railroad. The line currently has six stops: Riverfront Station, Donelson, Hermitage, Mount Juliet, Martha (State Route 109 and U.S. Highway 70), and Lebanon. The operation covers 32 miles (51 kilometres) of rail line. Service began on September 18, 2006.

X-T1, 18-55mm Lens, 1/450th @ F4, ISO-200, Handheld.
Music City Star-03087 by G.K.Jnr., on Flickr

:ty: for looking., (y):fuji:

George.
Click to expand...
Looks like a sharp curve for such a large loco. Sweet shot with just enough background to give context.
 
Stephen L said:
Looks like a sharp curve for such a large loco. Sweet shot with just enough background to give context.
Click to expand...


Many thanks for that Sir, much appreciate your comments.(y)

"The loco is only moving very slowly at that point as that's Nashville Stn in the background but yes there is quite a curve as it pulls out of the Stn. It's only a total of three units long ie the Loco plus two Double Deck Carriages"

George.
 
Still undecided about aiming for a XT2 body, so may look at possibility of adding another lens to my camera bag instead, something like a XF90 or the XF100-400, I already have a 55-200 so the 50-140 would be too close to what I already have.

Any advice guys n' gals ?

Thanks; Pete
 
macvisual said:
Still undecided about aiming for a XT2 body, so may look at possibility of adding another lens to my camera bag instead, something like a XF90 or the XF100-400, I already have a 55-200 so the 50-140 would be too close to what I already have.

Any advice guys n' gals ?

Thanks; Pete
Click to expand...

Peter

It really depends what you want to shoot?? Do you really need 400mm?? If you just want a bit of extra reach the adding the 2x teleconference to the 50-140 could be an option. I haven't seen you post a lot of long range stuff, a lot of your pics are either at the wide end or dog portraits, and you already have the lenses to cover these. I think you've just got a GAS attack :D
 
The 50-140 plus the TC is always on my wishlist. Sometimes you need a bit of gas to get your mojo back, it's best to burp it up [emoji3]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top