The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

chrism_scotland said:
Is anyone using the new “Enhance Details” function in Lightroom/Camera RAW? Does it make as much difference on Fuji raws as they’re making out?
Click to expand...

I tried a couple in camera raw, and It didn`t seem to make much difference at all. Maybe it works better on certain images? But does make a second (enhabced) copy though, so you will always have the two.
 
cambsno said:
The XT3 is seriously making me think about changing from Nikon. Has anyone here used this (or an XT2/1, with either the 100-400 or 55-200) for aircraft/airshows, as that is something I shoot. Also, historically flash was pretty poor on Fuji, currently use a couple of SB900s off camera for paid work, are the Godox ones as good?

It will be a big step to change. I will need to part with D750, 20mm, 50mm, 85mm, 24-70mm, 200-500mm and my Fuji X100F (along with a couple of flash units). Roughly I think I could get an XT3, 16-55mm, 23mm, 35mm, 50mm and 55-200mm along with some Godox stuff and roughly be cost neutral, or mean if I add a few hundred I could get the 10-24 or swap the 50mm for the 56mm. I like using primes although that may be partly as I prefer to not walkabout with the 24-70! Will miss the X100F as that is my pocket size camera.

Why change - I would like to travel lighter and not have a big heavy bag! I love the Fuji range (had an XPro1 briefly).

What would I miss - Battery life of D750, great ISO performance of the D750, having the X100F.

Concerns - Flash, the 2/3 airshows I go to each year

What do I shoot - Kids and family, normal stuff like holidays, TLE events (trains/buses/planes), paid work (normally family portraits but some headshots and the odd wedding - this is more awkward as have a backup D300).

Thoughts anyone?
Click to expand...

I do our local airshows but have only used the X-T20 and it was great to use, now the X-T3 is even better than the X-T20 and X-T2 I think you will be well fine doing it.
 
@cambsno

Simon. Perhaps a consideration about whether or not you use high ISO for paid work might be in order. I loved my Fuji setup, except for available light high ISO performance.
Switched back to Full Frame.
If it wasn’t for this I’d still happily be with Fuji.

Still have my X100F though.
 
Paulie-W said:
I tried a couple in camera raw, and It didn`t seem to make much difference at all. Maybe it works better on certain images? But does make a second (enhabced) copy though, so you will always have the two.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I might dig out some of my old XT2/X-Pro 2 RAW's and have a play later, if I could get a little extra detail it might pull me back into Fuji!
 
chrism_scotland said:
Thanks, I might dig out some of my old XT2/X-Pro 2 RAW's and have a play later, if I could get a little extra detail it might pull me back into Fuji!
Click to expand...

If you hit enhance, once it comes up in the centre, you can hold the mouse button down to see the difference it will make. As everything though, some will, some won`t work I guess.
 
@cambsno..

Simon, I have the XT1 & XT2 and the 100-400mm you are welcome to try if your unsure, I’m also about to trade in all my Olympus Equipment for the XT3 and 50-140mm f2.8 + t/c.

I live in Sawston.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
I cannot answer all of your concerns, but I did switch from Nikon FF to the Fuji system a couple of years back. It was the XT-1 at the time for me, and I was able to use the Yongnuo 560 flash that I'd been using for the D800 without any hassle, with the exact same trigger system - cheapie trigger/receiver I got on Amazon. In fact I am still using that same flash and trigger system for my current Panasonic G80, just seems to work with any camera: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Neewer-Cha...&qid=1550972848&sr=8-3&keywords=flash+trigger


I had 2x SB900 units [bought on here in fact] previous and sold them on a couple of Yongnuo units - for me, as a mostly manual flash user, there was no difference.

Other factors - I didn't miss the much larger Raw files, I never felt I was lacking in image quality [sure, smaller files, less crop-ability, but nothing major] - in fact I think the only thing I missed was the grip/ergonomics of the D800, it just took some getting used to and it didn't take very long. I did get a battery grip for the XT1, and I felt it benefited even though it was just the one extra battery for that model, just ergonomically I enjoyed using it more. I never ugraded to the XT-2 but often wished I had.

The 55-200 I can also vouch for, excellent lens for the money. It's sharp wide open at 200mm meaning you can rely on it in dimmer lighting, as it's got that nice 4.8 aperture and the OIS is excellent on it. I never shot planes with it but I cannot see that being any problem.
Click to expand...

Thanks - I use cheap yongnuo triggers and when I do use flash it 99% manual so that sounds good. Coming from the D700 my concern with the D750 was the smaller size, buttons and not being as easy to hold or rigged but I then (when i had both) realised that after a while I much preferred the weight and size difference. The 55-200 seems to have a good reputation and not to be compared with the Nikon 55-200 (which is a decent lens but not the quality I am after or used to). As the D750 is 24mp and the XT3 26mp the file size should be similar.

What are your thoughts on ISO. My D700 was great at 1600, not so good at 3200 I thought but the D750 is still good at 3200. I find the XT100F good at 1600 but does tail off at 3200 (this is peeping a bit though).
 
trevorbray said:
@cambsno

Simon. Perhaps a consideration about whether or not you use high ISO for paid work might be in order. I loved my Fuji setup, except for available light high ISO performance.
Switched back to Full Frame.
If it wasn’t for this I’d still happily be with Fuji.

Still have my X100F though.
Click to expand...

Very rarely. Most of my work is either in local woodland in the day or in peoples homes with flash. Most of the time its 400 and below, occasionally 800. There will be some times (winter in the woods) when the light is not as good and I needed to go 1600 or even the odd 3200 and sometimes more exp increase in LR but this is not common.
 
Gandalf said:
@cambsno..

Simon, I have the XT1 & XT2 and the 100-400mm you are welcome to try if your unsure, I’m also about to trade in all my Olympus Equipment for the XT3 and 50-140mm f2.8 + t/c.

I live in Sawston.
Click to expand...

Thats a lovely offer, thank you. Will take you up on that and send you a PM in a week or so as under the weather with cold at the moment and have a busy week at work this week.
 
I wouldn't hold out much hope of the new Lightroom update making much difference to Fuji files. It it's detail that's important, it's better to switch to another converter (i.e Capture One) though it's only certain files which really seem to tax LR. I'm myself am now on the fence between Nikon Z6 and Fuji. To me there's no doubt that the combination of the Z sensor and new S glass gives more clarity and colour subtlety to images overall -- particularly in lower light -- though the differences are not always very marked. Weight is one aspect to consider but I don't see a huge difference in what I would take for travelling. My typical Fuji X-Pro2 setup would be 10-24 +35 +50-140 =2090g v Nikon 14-30 + 50+70-300 AF-P+adaptor =2370g or just two zooms Fuji 16-55 + 50-140 =2145g or Nikon 24-70 + 70-300(+ adaptor) =1965g though the latter Fuji is theoretical as I don't own the 16-55 f2.8.

Ok, there are those who would say Fuji 18-55+55-200. Trouble is from my experience, these Fuji lenses are nowhere near as good as the Nikons I've chosen and I got rid of both eventually. For those using older Nikon lenses and DSLR camera wanting to switch to Fuji and would be happy with the Fuji "kit" lenses, then go ahead by all means. Simon's situation probably requires a longer lens than I do but it may well be that the X-T3 will give the improved AF performance needed for airshows and arguably also for weddings. It may well be that much of the somewhat hit and miss AF I used to find with the Fuji 55-200 in particular in mediocre light would be improved with Fuji's latest hardware. Keith praises this lens but I could only get sharp 200mm in contrasty light. Quite a number of landscape shots in countries with "subtle" light such as Scotland or Iceland didn't come out as well as hoped (esp. with my previous rather basic X-E1 focussing)
 
lunar22 said:
I wouldn't hold out much hope of the new Lightroom update making much difference to Fuji files. It it's detail that's important, it's better to switch to another converter (i.e Capture One) though it's only certain files which really seem to tax LR. I'm myself am now on the fence between Nikon Z6 and Fuji. To me there's no doubt that the combination of the Z sensor and new S glass gives more clarity and colour subtlety to images overall -- particularly in lower light -- though the differences are not always very marked. Weight is one aspect to consider but I don't see a huge difference in what I would take for travelling. My typical Fuji X-Pro2 setup would be 10-24 +35 +50-140 =2090g v Nikon 14-30 + 50+70-300 AF-P+adaptor =2370g or just two zooms Fuji 16-55 + 50-140 =2145g or Nikon 24-70 + 70-300(+ adaptor) =1965g though the latter Fuji is theoretical as I don't own the 16-55 f2.8.

Ok, there are those who would say Fuji 18-55+55-200. Trouble is from my experience, these Fuji lenses are nowhere near as good as the Nikons I've chosen and I got rid of both eventually. For those using older Nikon lenses and DSLR camera wanting to switch to Fuji and would be happy with the Fuji "kit" lenses, then go ahead by all means. Simon's situation probably requires a longer lens than I do but it may well be that the X-T3 will give the improved AF performance needed for airshows and arguably also for weddings. It may well be that much of the somewhat hit and miss AF I used to find with the Fuji 55-200 in particular in mediocre light would be improved with Fuji's latest hardware. Keith praises this lens but I could only get sharp 200mm in contrasty light. Quite a number of landscape shots in countries with "subtle" light such as Scotland or Iceland didn't come out as well as hoped (esp. with my previous rather basic X-E1 focussing)
Click to expand...

I am in a similar pickle. Well I was considering X-T30+18-55+55-200 for travel and landscapes. But I am not sure about the 55-200mm, I use 100-400 on FF which gives me very sharp results but pain to carry around.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
That review seems to suggest it's as good as 55-200 which I am not sure is good enough for landscapes.
Also it's a bit dark for my liking.
Click to expand...
Wait, you think the 55-200 is not good enough for landscapes? [emoji848]
 
Ian W said:
Wait, you think the 55-200 is not good enough for landscapes? [emoji848]
Click to expand...
I don't know... I have never had it, I have only read reviews and some of them suggested it's not great in the corners wide open.
 
Ian W said:
Fine for landscapes at f8-13 then (in my experience anyway)
Click to expand...
Landscapes don't necessarily need to be shot at f8 and above. I shoot at f4-5.6 many times especially in low light. Also anything above f8 is diffraction territory on APS-C
 
nandbytes said:
Landscapes don't necessarily need to be shot at f8 and above. I shoot at f4-5.6 many times especially in low light. Also anything above f8 is diffraction territory on APS-C
Click to expand...
Best get yourself a 50-140mm then [emoji39]
 
Ian W said:
Best get yourself a 50-140mm then [emoji39]
Click to expand...

well I could but my weight saving effort would be somewhat lost :p

makes me wonder if I am after hen's tooth tbh. A small-ish sharp telephoto that's sharp wide open corner to corner.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
well I could but my weight saving effort would be somewhat lost [emoji14]

makes me wonder if I am after hen's tooth tbh. A small-ish sharp telephoto that's sharp wide open corner to corner.
Click to expand...
Pretty much! Sounds like you're as likely to find the perfect bag (ie never!) [emoji23]
 
nandbytes said:
well I could but my weight saving effort would be somewhat lost :p

makes me wonder if I am after hen's tooth tbh. A small-ish sharp telephoto that's sharp wide open corner to corner.
Click to expand...

I am still holding out for an f2 24-400 Nikon lens that’s as sharp as a 50mm prime and less than 600g in weight. Can’t work out why they haven’t launched it yet??[emoji14]
 
cambsno said:
I am still holding out for an f2 24-400 Nikon lens that’s as sharp as a 50mm prime and less than 600g in weight. Can’t work out why they haven’t launched it yet??[emoji14]
Click to expand...

My ask isn't that's ridiculous :p

Something like canon 55-250mm STM doesn't actually seem so bad wide open. Fuji 55-200 might be better, I just don't know and reading reviews I wasn't convinced it was. hence just asked here. canon is actually a cheaper lens though so I was hoping Fuji is better.
 
chrism_scotland said:
Is anyone using the new “Enhance Details” function in Lightroom/Camera RAW? Does it make as much difference on Fuji raws as they’re making out?
Click to expand...
Not seriously but I had a hand-held wide angle blue hour cityscape shot that I was perfectly happy with in Lr but the detail enhancement had a very noticeable beneficial effect. It was especially good in resolving high contrast bits like tiny lightbulbs/streetlights that looked messy in the original version. Very processor intensive (I've an old computer) but I will use it on anything I print from now on if it performs this well in all situations.
 
nandbytes said:
My ask isn't that's ridiculous :p

Something like canon 55-250mm STM doesn't actually seem so bad wide open. Fuji 55-200 might be better, I just don't know and reading reviews I wasn't convinced it was. hence just asked here. canon is actually a cheaper lens though so I was hoping Fuji is better.
Click to expand...

It's that very lens that had me pondering on an EF adapter for m43. The price is insane for a lens that gets nothing but praise. A Viltrox AF adapter plus Canon 55-250 is cheaper than the Panasonic 45-200 and that lens doesn't get good reviews. You could look into similar adapter for Fuji
 
Following on from the recent thread showing a collection of cars in 1:8 scale I am going to start one of m own, here was a quick experimental shot. I'm hoping to get a few done over the next couple of weeks :)

DSCF1983 by rick phillips, on Flickr
 
nandbytes said:
I am in a similar pickle. Well I was considering X-T30+18-55+55-200 for travel and landscapes. But I am not sure about the 55-200mm, I use 100-400 on FF which gives me very sharp results but pain to carry around.
Click to expand...
I think the biggest issue with the 55-200 is focus reliability in less than optimal light but it may be the X-T3 solves many of the problems. Comparing it to Nikon's older 70-300 VR (I actually had two different copies of this), it is generally better at the edges but the sharpness is not entirely consistent, esp. at distance. The new Nikon 70-300 f4.5-5.6 AF-P, which supposedly uses much of the technology of the S lenses, is much better than either and stands comparison with Fuji's 50-140 imo though of course the constant f2.8 does help when the light gets low. Value for money if you don't need f2.8 and don't worry about the more plasticy build, the Nikon wins hands down.
 
Cagey75 said:
It's that very lens that had me pondering on an EF adapter for m43. The price is insane for a lens that gets nothing but praise. A Viltrox AF adapter plus Canon 55-250 is cheaper than the Panasonic 45-200 and that lens doesn't get good reviews. You could look into similar adapter for Fuji
Click to expand...
Fuji has an AF adapter too for EF lenses but I don't like to adapt tbh.
 
nandbytes said:
That review seems to suggest it's as good as 55-200 which I am not sure is good enough for landscapes.
Also it's a bit dark for my liking.
Click to expand...

What do you mean a bit dark. Images can be as bright or dark as you like. Depending both on processing and exposure, and even screen calibration.
Darkness is not a scientific consept in this case. It is whatever you choose to make it.
 
lunar22 said:
I think the biggest issue with the 55-200 is focus reliability in less than optimal light but it may be the X-T3 solves many of the problems. Comparing it to Nikon's older 70-300 VR (I actually had two different copies of this), it is generally better at the edges but the sharpness is not entirely consistent, esp. at distance. The new Nikon 70-300 f4.5-5.6 AF-P, which supposedly uses much of the technology of the S lenses, is much better than either and stands comparison with Fuji's 50-140 imo though of course the constant f2.8 does help when the light gets low. Value for money if you don't need f2.8 and don't worry about the more plasticy build, the Nikon wins hands down.
Click to expand...
Well instead of buying 40-150 I can simply buy a 70-200 f4 on FF.
Perhaps I'll see how well I can adapt the EF-S lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top