The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

mickledore said:
Look what I've just bought.
Nothing photographic and if you are aged 40 or under you won't have a clue what this is, but the older ones will drool!!!!


Ian-allan by mickledore on Talk Photography
Click to expand...

I bet you paid more than "Two Bob" for it Frank.:D:D

George.
 
I've decided to wait it out until May before I get the X-T1, I want to see how the XPro2 performs.
 
zoidberg said:
Any one used a Nikon to Fuji X adapter? Looking for a cheap way of using my Lensbaby on my X-T10 with out having to fork out for an X mount lensbaby.
Click to expand...


Yes I use a cheapy from flea bay, with no problems whatsoever. One thing to look out for though is to make sure whatever you get has metal mounts and will enable you to focus at infinity as not all of them will allow this.(y)

George.
 
mickledore said:
Damn. You beat me to it.

Wait till you see what I've just ordered. Should be here tomorrow.
Bet you can't guess!
Click to expand...

Well in your position I'd be buying the XF23mm

I'm still waiting for my new CF tripod, (on order) and my Hitech 16 stopper (ordered in November)

Still not bought any bodies or lenses and I'm almost a month in, though I had some X70 lust yesterday but it soon passed!!!!
 
G.K.Jnr. said:
Yes that will do the job, mine does not work with the (G) lenses though, only those that have a manual aperture ring. I understand that these ones work OK but the the actual aperture you set is a bit touch and go ie it's guess work.(y)

George.
Click to expand...
Nice thing about the Lensbaby, you set aperture with disks.
 
OK, this is going to sound a little odd given that I've been shooting with Fuji for a couple of years now...but...after reading a few articles today, I wanted to see how OOC JPEG image quality compared to RAW output from Lightroom. It's safe to say that I am shocked...the JPEG files are much nicer! Even at high ISO, the detail is better and noise looks nicer. I'm shocked, confused and a little bit pleased all at the same time. I know I could improve things with Photo Ninja/Capture One/Irident...but why would I want to, unless I cocked the shot up?

I'm going to practice with a few more images first before getting too excited (I always shoot JPG and RAW, so plenty of material to compare), but this could save quite a bit of time!!
 
Last edited:
Funny you should say that. Quite by accident I went out and shot just JPEG. My fault and I didn't notice till I got home. I wasn't shooting in too bright conditions and in low light I was on a tripod too keep ISO low.
But I was quite surprised at the quality of the finished product. Not much PP was needed and my shot above (the orange with black swirl) is virtually SOOC.
I keep thinking I should try a day just on JPEG and see what I come up with.
There are guys on here who give the impression that they never shoot RAW. Maybe they are right all along.
 
It's really fascinating. I have presets in Lightroom for my Fuji RAF files, which sharpen x amount dependant on ISO used and the look I'm going for. I exported a RAF as usual and imported the original JPG and applied the same develop settings (bar sharpening) and exported that one too. The modified JPG was still nicer than the RAF file - more detail in all areas :) Obviously you need to be pixel peeping to see this sort of stuff, and the JPG didn't have the dynamic range of the RAF file, but to say I'm impressed is an understatement!
 
Last edited:
I don't tend to use presets. I process each shot individually. So mist of my JPEG had no or minimal attention.
As you say pixel peepers may find fault but most of my shots are only ever viewed on my monitor and they do seem very good. I might have to play with all the various film presets and see what happens then.
 
Never used the on camera convertor. If I use that do I lose the RAW file or do I get two images - the original and the converted?
 
Unanswerable question..,can I live with 'just f2' with the new 35mm? Is the AF speed worth it? It won't be my most used lens for work stuff (hello 23/56) but I fancy a compact-ish 'everyday' lens that keeps up with my 15 month old.
 
mickledore said:
Never used the on camera convertor. If I use that do I lose the RAW file or do I get two images - the original and the converted?
Click to expand...

The original RAW is kept as is, and a new JPG is produced. If you shot RAW+JPG, you end up with the original RAW+JPG+the new JPG :)
 
ukaskew said:
Unanswerable question..,can I live with 'just f2' with the new 35mm? Is the AF speed worth it? It won't be my most used lens for work stuff (hello 23/56) but I fancy a compact-ish 'everyday' lens that keeps up with my 15 month old.
Click to expand...

I'm probably going to order the f2 in the next week or so. Going to take some time comparing them both before deciding which to keep.
 
My view is that f/1.4 is needed with the 16MP sensor for low light work, in order that images don't get to noisy (which is why I haven't been using the 18/2 much recently). However, the X-Pro 2's sensor looks quite a bit better at high ISO, so in theory that will negate the need for an f/1.4 aperture.
 
manualfocus-g said:
My view is that f/1.4 is needed with the 16MP sensor for low light work, in order that images don't get to noisy (which is why I haven't been using the 18/2 much recently). However, the X-Pro 2's sensor looks quite a bit better at high ISO, so in theory that will negate the need for an f/1.4 aperture.
Click to expand...
But imagine having the high iOS capabilities of the new sensor and f1.4 :)
 
manualfocus-g said:
I missed off the bit about losing quite a few shots due to the slower focusing of the 35/1.4 though!
Click to expand...

That would be my concern, I love the idea of the f1.4 for the shallow DoF but I'd be buying a 35mm for people pics so I think the faster AF would be better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top