- Messages
- 3,839
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
They are very good, and the amount of processing you can do in camera means you might not need to edit them much. They also have a lot of highlight and shadow recovery potential for a jpeg.
-
Important: the Server Hamster is in need of a bit of TLC so the site will be off line for a while on Friday morning, the 17th
The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread
- Thread starter mart77
- Start date
- Messages
- 206
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Just looking for comparisons of the 23mm and the 25mm and based on videos and comments in said videos, the 25mm seems to win out for most people? Apparently there are field curvature issues on the 23mm; as well as it being considerably heavier.
This video:
is one example of said comparison. Looking at his pictures theres really not much in it.
- Messages
- 206
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
This was my main draw for Fuji - I'm not particularly interested in spending hours in Capture One or Lightroom editing photos. I work in IT, at a screen all day - I don't want to spend even more time at a screen pixel peeping! I only shoot in JPEG unless I'm going on holiday or doing a little project.
Plain Nev
Vincent Furnier
- Messages
- 2,029
- Name
- Neville
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes, they do. I was pleasantly surprised at how much latitude they gave you. That's pretty much all I do as a rule. Especially when you consider that a good RAW file will end up as a JPEG anyway, it's a no brainer.
- Messages
- 8,046
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
This is all well and good, but turn around the light can completely different and require a different set of settings to get the best. JPGs in camera have their uses, especially in seeing how an image is likely to look, but ultimately you can get a lot more out of the RAW files.
One very important thing to note is that the JPG Simulation directly affects the histogram, and the RAW file underneath can look quite different. Just be aware of this as you can end up expsure limiting the RAW file that you may want to process later..
- Messages
- 3,839
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Don't go into this expecting any sort of optical perfection, they all have issues but that's part of the fun. My 25mm has loads of barrel distortion, easy enough to fix in LR if you want to (I just have a preset that applies the fix in one click). That said the images I posted the other day don't have that correction applied and they look fine to me. But for £69 you honestly can't go wrong. Buy from Amazon and you've got 30 days to return it if you don't like it. I love shooting with it and just embrace the flaws. The flare can look good in certain images if you use it right. I did buy a cheap lens hood but it doesn't achieve much.
Here's some more I took with the 25mm f2 on holiday, using the Pacific Blues film recipe. These really look like they were shot on film to me.
The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread
I shoot in raw, but like "Classic Neg" simulation, but I apply that in Lightroom.
www.talkphotography.co.uk
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,839
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have one card set to Raw and one to Jpeg so I have the choice. For my motorsport work I always use the Raw, but for holiday stuff and general photography the Jpeg is usually good enough. I always have the Raw to fall back on if the light is particularly challenging or I want to change the film sim after the fact.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 8,046
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Unless you need the framerates, then I would shoot RAW+JPG to each card, that way you have 'proper' backups.
I have periods where I try to live with the JPGs, but generally prefer the edited RAW.
- Messages
- 206
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Those are some nice images. Yeah I guess it doesnt really matter which one...Don't go into this expecting any sort of optical perfection, they all have issues but that's part of the fun. My 25mm has loads of barrel distortion, easy enough to fix in LR if you want to (I just have a preset that applies the fix in one click). That said the images I posted the other day don't have that correction applied and they look fine to me. But for £69 you honestly can't go wrong. Buy from Amazon and you've got 30 days to return it if you don't like it. I love shooting with it and just embrace the flaws. The flare can look good in certain images if you use it right. I did buy a cheap lens hood but it doesn't achieve much.
Here's some more I took with the 25mm f2 on holiday, using the Pacific Blues film recipe. These really look like they were shot on film to me.
The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread
I shoot in raw, but like "Classic Neg" simulation, but I apply that in Lightroom.
Given that I have the 27mm already; do you think 25mm is kind of pointless? I'm wondering if plumping for the 23mm instead would make more sense; less overlap in FoV
- Messages
- 3,839
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
There's not a vast difference between 23, 25 and 27mm in the real world. Your 27mm is a stop slower and has AF. I wouldn't look at either of these MF lenses as a serious tool, it's something that's fun to shoot with that makes nice images. I'd never use my 25mm for photography I really cared about, but it's nice for holiday snaps and having a play around with.
I guess do you want to spend an extra £60 on the 23mm f1.4 for very little difference in the final image.
- Messages
- 60
- Edit My Images
- Yes
This is what I do. RAW + JPEG to both cards, so I get the backups. Most of the time for daily snapshots the JPEGs are just fine but if there's a banger photo I'll edit the RAW.
- Messages
- 8,046
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
There is quite a difference if you mainly shoot in portrait format, this is something I do a lot and then crop to 5:4 as 3:2 vertical is all wrong (most of the time - IMHO)
@colourofsound just be aware of building a collection of very similar IQ cheap lenses of similar focal lengths, you will at some point have the value of a Fuji lens in cheap lenses (I know I've been there and had to give myself a serious talking to!) - at the end of the day the IQ on the Fuji glass is a long way ahead of these sort of lenses, and some third party options (Sigma/Viltrox) run it close. You can always degrade a higher IQ image in post to give you something like you would have got from teh cheap glass, but you can't do it round the other way!
Plain Nev
Vincent Furnier
- Messages
- 2,029
- Name
- Neville
- Edit My Images
- Yes
But isn't that the same regardless of whether it's RAW, or JPG? The light will change whichever way you look. There is no denying that there is a great deal more flexibility in a RAW file. And I certainly intend to keep using them. But I'm thinking maybe they ought to be specific to your subject matter.
- Messages
- 8,046
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well yes, but with the RAW you might have to tweak the exposure compensation, but the with JPG, you might need to also adjust highliughts/shadows/etc to get the iamge you wanted.
Plain Nev
Vincent Furnier
- Messages
- 2,029
- Name
- Neville
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Sorry Dave. I don't mean to go on. But you still have to do that with RAW. I suppose everyone has their own way of doing it. I don't think I've ever used exposure compensation myself, and just adjust the levels the same be they RAW or JPG. I tend to let the exposure float and adjust for detail. Anything else can be pulled out, or scaled back.
- Messages
- 8,046
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes but is not baked in at that point unlike the JPG, and you can severly restrict the flexibility in the JPG with your camera settings.
I think what we are both saying is right, we are just having a slightly different conversation
In a nutshell, if you are happy with the JPGs then shoot JPG, personally I prefer more flexibility in post so I use the RAWs, even though I may use a film simulation when composing the image!
- Messages
- 12,774
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
I've never understood people that rave about Fuji and then shoot in RAW, it is destroying the whole point of the camera
system; ie the processing engine and X-Trans sensor.
Unless you are tethering the camera to your computer and using that to process the RAW files, then you might as well use any generic Bayer sensor on the market.
system; ie the processing engine and X-Trans sensor.
Unless you are tethering the camera to your computer and using that to process the RAW files, then you might as well use any generic Bayer sensor on the market.
- Messages
- 2,813
- Name
- Greg
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Having just moved back to Fuji ( again!) I find the RAW files are definitely part of the appeal.
To me, in terms of colour and tone, they are much closer to what I want in an image than many other brands, thereby cutting the time it takes to process them.
- Messages
- 8,046
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have more Fuji cameras with Bayer sensors (X100 original/GFX) than with X-Trans (X100F)
- Messages
- 9,619
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The handling of the cameras, the menu system, the lenses..... I soot in RAW all the time, but I prefer doing it on my Fuji, rather than my Canons & Nikons of the past. I think the Nikon Zf has great appeal also, but I can't afford to change systems again.
- Messages
- 3,839
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well for a start by shooting Raw I don't commit to one film sim when taking the photo. I can change it to any film simulation at any point after the fact, which I have found to be invaluable as I've learnt how to get the best from the system. I use both Jpegs and Raws depending on the situation, the subject, how much time I have and how bothered I can be to do some editing.
- Messages
- 12,774
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Only if you do it in camera (or tethered). If you are using Lightroom, then you are sort of missing the point.
- Messages
- 12,774
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Raymond Lin
I am Groot
- Messages
- 10,048
- Name
- Raymond
- Edit My Images
- No
I have a love hate relationship with shooting with film simulation ....or as i call it, presets or even filters, after now 2 weeks shooting with it in Italy and Croatia
The good part is that it is easy, it is convenient, and it can look stylish.
However, that requires I know the mood of the photo before I take it, I need to know what the shot want to look like before it is taken. My mind is used to concentrating on capturing the moment, the settings and technique, and now to have to add something else on top of all that is erm.....cumbersome. I have been used to, or rather, my process is to get the shot and then I will consider how it will look like later. Sometimes a shot will look better in Black and White, sometimes it is better with colour. For example, if I see a certain pattern in the real world and I want to take shot of it, it can be a pattern in colour or black and white, but I can compare it later in post. To shoot JPEG and be "stuck" with that is limiting the potential of the image.
The good part is that it is easy, it is convenient, and it can look stylish.
However, that requires I know the mood of the photo before I take it, I need to know what the shot want to look like before it is taken. My mind is used to concentrating on capturing the moment, the settings and technique, and now to have to add something else on top of all that is erm.....cumbersome. I have been used to, or rather, my process is to get the shot and then I will consider how it will look like later. Sometimes a shot will look better in Black and White, sometimes it is better with colour. For example, if I see a certain pattern in the real world and I want to take shot of it, it can be a pattern in colour or black and white, but I can compare it later in post. To shoot JPEG and be "stuck" with that is limiting the potential of the image.
Plain Nev
Vincent Furnier
- Messages
- 2,029
- Name
- Neville
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I can't say I understand that. I have no trouble finding my way around it at all. I suppose it's what you are used too.
- Messages
- 12,774
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
It isn't a question of navigating. It is the lack of functionality compared to the three main brands.
No facility to alter the clock in seconds - whole minutes only.
The inability to register any of the set up menu items under My Menu - when almost all other functions can be linked to the Q menu.
The inability to select card slot 2 as the default option in play back.
The list rolls on and on.
If I didn't love the camera so much then I'd bin it as not fit for purpose for professional use.
Oh and the fact that they have crippled the WiFi functionality in both X-H2 models so that you need to spend £1k on a grip to enable FTP.
Last edited:
Plain Nev
Vincent Furnier
- Messages
- 2,029
- Name
- Neville
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Good point, well made. Yes, I suppose from a professional point of view it's different.
- Messages
- 206
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It probably makes more sense to look at for a wider lens; but I think theres not many around 18mm in a pancakey format
- Messages
- 9,619
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
For you, not me or many others. Your opinion is only that, your opinion. I've been playing with cameras for over 40 years, so if I think something feels right for me, then it is. That horse you ride has very long legs, maybe you should step off of it from time to time.
- Messages
- 3,839
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I am fully aware that the LR profiles are Adobe's facsimiles of the Fuji film simulations, and they are very close but not exactly the same as you'd get in camera. I also know that LR is far from the best Raw converter for X-Trans files, although it is much better than it was and the worms issue is caused by oversharpening more than anything else.
I've done back to back tests on my own photos, comparing a Raw to a Jpeg. The jpeg had better colours and was sharper than the processed Raw. But, you had to be pixel peeping at 100% to see the difference. I value the flexibility to change my mind about the film simulation after the fact, and the better highlight and shadow recovery potential of a Raw, over that final 1% of IQ that you'd never notice at normal viewing sizes anyway. It's not missing the point at all, it's me using my camera in the way that suits my needs best. I use both methods of shooting, depending on the subject and how much time I have. I've tried a jpeg workflow for my motorsport work and I prefer shooting Raw and processing in LR.
- Messages
- 9,619
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Did a bit of still life last night. Single flash head, T3 & 35 f1.4 (Did I ever tell you how much I love this lens?).
Alium 1 by Steve Jelly, on Flickr
Teasel 1 by Steve Jelly, on Flickr
Teasel 2 BW by Steve Jelly, on Flickr
Alium 1 by Steve Jelly, on FlickrTeasel 1 by Steve Jelly, on FlickrTeasel 2 BW by Steve Jelly, on Flickr
- Messages
- 12,774
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Oh dear. Did one decide to get defensive about one's choice of camera?
Read my second post on that. Fuji cripple functionality in the menu. Whether that is deliberate or not, I have no idea.
However, since they are actively pursuing professional photographers and courting them, then their menu system needs to live up to that standard.
Currently it does not.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 9,619
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
In your opinion...
I don't need to defend my choice, I'm very happy with it. If the system is that poor I have to wonder why you bother frequenting this part of the forum....
And the Sony menu system was terrible in my opinion, that's why I never purchased one.
D
Deleted member 95430
Guest
Whats the use case for this out of interest
- Messages
- 12,774
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
The camera is great and produces fantastic images. As I have said before.
However the menu is severely lacking in functionality.
That may not be apparent for amateur use (not aspersions cast) but for professional use there are a number of issues.
It isn't so much defending your choice as being blind to the basic facts. No camera or system is perfect and one should be able to highlight that without being told to leave
a thread.
- Messages
- 12,774
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Synchronising cameras. A fairly basic function that's vital when you are working with multiple bodies and/or photographers.
Only being able to sync every sixty seconds can be a major PITA and there is no way to verify that the cameras are in sync.
With a possible variation of up to 59 seconds, that could well cause issues.
Nod
Tootles
- Messages
- 45,704
- Name
- Nod (UK)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Fuji seem to be quite proactive with firmware updates. Have you suggested your improvements to them - from a quick look, your issues seem to be fixable with firmware.
100% agree with the last sentence. If only such a thing was available! BUT, what's perfect for me wouldn't be for you etc..
- Messages
- 12,774
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Yep. I spoke to one of the Fuji pro reps online.
Unlike the Canon or Sony pro reps who are fantastic, they didn't appear too interested.
Which is rather sad because the fixes to improve the system would be fairly basic menu coding:
For example enable the facility to manually reset the file number, rather than having to change the count to 'Reset', format the card, remove the card, replace it, turn the camera off then on and then change the file numbering back to continuous!
- Messages
- 60
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm not 100% sure of this but I believe the X-T5 syncs the time/date with your phone if you connect with the app, which would result in very accurate time/date.