The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

Cagey75 said:
It's down to personal preference here, but if you're definitely keeping the XT20, and prefer lighter set ups, then that's not a bad idea. The 90mm looks a stunning lens, but if it's not enjoyable to use for you then the 2 smaller primes might be the right thing to do. It's all about photography being enjoyable, if you know they will be more fun to use, then just do it! :)
Click to expand...
Totally agree on that I had a brief spell away from Fuji with an omd em10 ii and 14-42 and love the handling but not the image quality. Hence that's why I've picked up an xt20 with 16-50 and already have the 35 1.4
 
Bigger discounts coming mid month according to the Fuji rumour mongers, on the XF and X-Trans stuff too.
 
mickledore said:
How much? You could get a car for that.
(Copyright SWMBO)
Click to expand...

Just got a new to us jam jar so no camera for me, only the fourth one since 1987, had a few more cameras in that time though.
 
tijuana taxi said:
Bigger discounts coming mid month according to the Fuji rumour mongers, on the XF and X-Trans stuff too.
Click to expand...

Gives me time to rob a bank then :)

mickledore said:
How much? You could get a car for that.
(Copyright SWMBO)
Click to expand...

Lol. Im lucky as long as the camera is black mine does not notice the difference.
 
The guy we were talking to yesterday said he used his as his default camera. He took his everywhere. But as he worked for Fuji he probably didn't buy it with his own money.
 
mickledore said:
The guy we were talking to yesterday said he used his as his default camera. He took his everywhere. But as he worked for Fuji he probably didn't buy it with his own money.
Click to expand...

That does make it easier, like quite a few people on here would love one, but with the sensible head on maybe when they bring the next version out hopefully might be able to pick up a GFX-50 at a decent price.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Man Maths is a wonderful thing........

IMO it's an itch that will need scratching, it's just the bank balance that will determine the timing!!
Click to expand...
Trouble is....if you start Googling and read so called independent product reviews it does not compare too well to the big boys in this field. But their gear costs upwards of £15k. If you scratched the itch would you not be left wondering what if.....????
But would you notice the difference. Would you notice the difference to what you have now? Without pixel peeping.
 
mickledore said:
Trouble is....if you start Googling and read so called independent product reviews it does not compare too well to the big boys in this field. But their gear costs upwards of £15k. If you scratched the itch would you not be left wondering what if.....????
But would you notice the difference. Would you notice the difference to what you have now? Without pixel peeping.
Click to expand...

I doubt it, when the itch really starts itching I watch this video again
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JItVDBBnfCY
. especially the bit when he says the CFX is a lovely camera but he was glad to go back to the X-T2
Note to self write out 100 times .. I will not notice the difference.....
 
dave.hallett said:
Bit of night work with the Lens Turbo and an old Tak 55mm. I had to wait a while to get this few people in shot, as it's a very busy place at night...

It's a bit soft, being shot wide open (probably) but would print at 10x8 pretty happily, I think.


Theatrical by David Hallett, on Flickr
Click to expand...


Really like this David, personally I think it dos'ent matter if its a bit soft in this type of shot
 
dave.hallett said:
Bit of night work with the Lens Turbo and an old Tak 55mm. I had to wait a while to get this few people in shot, as it's a very busy place at night...

It's a bit soft, being shot wide open (probably) but would print at 10x8 pretty happily, I think.


Theatrical by David Hallett, on Flickr
Click to expand...
That’s a lovely shot. If it were mine I might try it with the right side cropped off, but it’s your shot and I’m probably wrong.
 
One thing with me is, I have never pixel peeped at all and never will as if it looks good then that will do for me. On the waxy skin saga, I have not seen it at all on any of my people shots, until I did a test which was, I totally over sharpened a shot and it showed up like a candle, so my people shots I wont sharpen.
 
Talking about the GX in here is a bit like discussing the D850 in a D7XXX thread. If we really had the money for gear like that it would have it's own thread. Not likely to happen I think.

dave.hallett said:
Bit of night work with the Lens Turbo and an old Tak 55mm. I had to wait a while to get this few people in shot, as it's a very busy place at night...

It's a bit soft, being shot wide open (probably) but would print at 10x8 pretty happily, I think.


Theatrical by David Hallett, on Flickr
Click to expand...


Nicely exposed. Do you feel it's soft because of the lens turbo? or is that lens soft wide open in general?
 
dave.hallett said:
Bit of night work with the Lens Turbo and an old Tak 55mm. I had to wait a while to get this few people in shot, as it's a very busy place at night...

It's a bit soft, being shot wide open (probably) but would print at 10x8 pretty happily, I think.


Theatrical by David Hallett, on Flickr
Click to expand...


Very nice Fujigraph Sir, good exposure, some lovely reflections, and nice foreground interest.(y)

George.
 
Dave70D said:
One thing with me is, I have never pixel peeped at all and never will as if it looks good then that will do for me. On the waxy skin saga, I have not seen it at all on any of my people shots, until I did a test which was, I totally over sharpened a shot and it showed up like a candle, so my people shots I wont sharpen.
Click to expand...

Never experienced 'waxy' skin issues here either, and I'm on an older gen body. As for the foliage, I took some shots of the kids on the street on their bikes yesterday, and the trees and hedges right down along the street, off into the distance, are crisp and clear. I'm wondering is it something people are doing with their files to cause these apparent issues?
 
Cagey75 said:
Never experienced 'waxy' skin issues here either, and I'm on an older gen body. As for the foliage, I took some shots of the kids on the street on their bikes yesterday, and the trees and hedges right down along the street, off into the distance, are crisp and clear. I'm wondering is it something people are doing with their files to cause these apparent issues?
Click to expand...

IMO I do think some folk can/might over do it in PP. As like I said for I have not seen it at all on my shots.
 
I think it only really matters to landscape photographers who require every leaf in a scenic to be pin sharp at 100% - I doubt anyone viewing the images normally would ever notice if it wasn't pointed out. I find Fuji cams to give very nice skin tones and textures, the key is not to over sharpen - or, be more selective when sharpening - just the eyes instead of the whole face for example
 
yamahatdm900 said:
Really like this David, personally I think it dos'ent matter if its a bit soft in this type of shot
Click to expand...

Stephen L said:
That’s a lovely shot. If it were mine I might try it with the right side cropped off, but it’s your shot and I’m probably wrong.
Click to expand...

Cheers both! @Stephen L, good thought. I can see a workable square crop I think. I'm bad at spotting those! Something like this...



Theatrical by dave.hallett on Talk Photography

Makes the compo more tightly focused, but loses the sweep of the harbour. Horses for courses, I think...

Cagey75 said:
Talking about the GX in here is a bit like discussing the D850 in a D7XXX thread. If we really had the money for gear like that it would have it's own thread. Not likely to happen I think.

Nicely exposed. Do you feel it's soft because of the lens turbo? or is that lens soft wide open in general?
Click to expand...

I've yet to notice any significant softening from the LT. It would only be in the corners if it happened at all, hardly a concern here. No, it's partly the ISO bump needed (underexposure due to high DR probably makes it effectively more like 3200 than the nominal 800), and partly that this lens doesn't get really sharp until you close it down a bit.

G.K.Jnr. said:
Very nice Fujigraph Sir, good exposure, some lovely reflections, and nice foreground interest.(y)

George.
Click to expand...

Cheers George, very kind!
 
dave.hallett said:
Cheers both! @Stephen L, good thought. I can see a workable square crop I think. I'm bad at spotting those! Something like this...



Theatrical by dave.hallett on Talk Photography

Makes the compo more tightly focused, but loses the sweep of the harbour. Horses for courses, I think...



I've yet to notice any significant softening from the LT. It would only be in the corners if it happened at all, hardly a concern here. No, it's partly the ISO bump needed (underexposure due to high DR probably makes it effectively more like 3200 than the nominal 800), and partly that this lens doesn't get really sharp until you close it down a bit.



Cheers George, very kind!
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s how I envisaged it. Agreed you lose the sweep of the harbour, but that’s not really the intended point of interest.
 
Cagey75 said:
That time of year again, to get the fires lit. This is from last night, first time we've lit the fire since end of January i think!

I shot this one hand held at 1/8th, just messing about, but surprisingly, even with the few beers I had in me, it turned out alright. Maybe the beer actually helped! :beer:

It's time by Enticing Imagery, on Flickr
Click to expand...


That's a very nice Fujigraph Sir, good angle, with very acurate colours.(y)

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