The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

macvisual said:
What kind of money do used/good condition X-T1 (original) vertical battery grips sell for roughly ?
Click to expand...
About 50-60 quid.

Stick a wanted ad up and send me a message - I've still got my grip from my XT1 and could do you a deal if you're able to collect it from Glasgow!
 
Fuji posted this on Twitter this morning.

"We are aware of an issue with the Camera Remote app and iOS10, resulting in the 1st connection attempt being rejected. A fix is coming soon."
 
macvisual said:
I believe Fooji are showing their 'X' wares at Calumet Photographic Open Day at the Glasgow branch today (Wed 19th) I've heard.

:)

I'll be there.
Click to expand...
Think I'm gonna head down at lunch time. Might see you there :)
 
macvisual said:
I believe Fooji are showing their 'X' wares at Calumet Photographic Open Day at the Glasgow branch today (Wed 19th) I've heard.

:)

I'll be there.
Click to expand...
Fooji were indeed there and I could not help but fondle said wares.

Long story short, I'm no further forward other than confirming that a 10-24 is not too big, I'd like a grip for my X-T10 and longer term must get an X-T2.
 
I "need" the 100-400mm going to have to move on my 35mm F2 and my much loved X100T :(
 
Ian W said:
Fooji were indeed there and I could not help but fondle said wares.

Long story short, I'm no further forward other than confirming that a 10-24 is not too big, I'd like a grip for my X-T10 and longer term must get an X-T2.
Click to expand...
So a fruitful and decisive visit, then? :D
 
Stephen L said:
So a fruitful and decisive visit, then? :D
Click to expand...
It was and it wasn't. It's opened it up to me in terms of 10-24 size is not too big. Issue is now whether I plump for a 10-24 or go with the very tempting 16mm at that price.

Every time I think, "it's only 2mm wider than my 18-55" I remember it's also f1.4 [emoji87] [emoji86] [emoji85]
Gadget-Guy said:
Thats an amazing price on the 16mm f1.4
Click to expand...
 
With the 10-24 you've got the widest Fuji do, plus at 24(35 equivalent) you've got the perfect FL for street and everything in between. Plus OIS, you know it makes sense :whistle:
 
Ian W said:
It was and it wasn't. It's opened it up to me in terms of 10-24 size is not too big. Issue is now whether I plump for a 10-24 or go with the very tempting 16mm at that price.

Every time I think, "it's only 2mm wider than my 18-55" I remember it's also f1.4 [emoji87] [emoji86] [emoji85]
Click to expand...
The real question is, would you actually use such a wide aperture on quite a wide-angle lens? Or are you just tempted by the fact that you could? Tough one, but given the choice of just one of those two lenses my own shooting style would say that the 10-24 would be more useful in the long term. I have the 10-24, and had the 16mm but swapped it for the 14mm for instances when I wanted to reduce shoulder weight. I found that in reality most of my shots tend to be f5.6 or smaller.
 
After a couple of weeks using my X-T2 with the power grip permanently fitted I've removed it, and boy does it feel better without! Doubt it'll be going back on, even when using the 50-140, which is the largest lens I have or can envisage having.
 
Ian W said:
I controlled my GAS and walked away empty handed. Strangely more proud of myself than had I actually bought one. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Well done Ian!



Of course, in the morning when they put their prices back up..........................:exit:
 
I enjoyed the Glasgow Calumet Open Day, especially focused on the Fuji stand of course, although I did by luck have the kind Epson guys print me off a huge 24"x16" colour print of our collie which I posted recently above on lustre paper, was amazed by the quality......... stunning actually! I brought a USB stick with me with the collie/dog image just in case, it worked out well.

I spent time and handled both the XP2 + XT2 and think the XT2 has it for me due to being slightly more versatile in terms of adding the battery power grip etc........I think if I bought the XP2 within a few months I'd probably say I should have went for the XT2.

So maybe a XT2 on the horizon for me at some stage. The Calumet Glasgow shop was very busy with folk alright, it had a good buzz to it.......no free coffee though......lol
 
One from a trip to Italy last week:
Dawn over Monte Vettore 1 by Ian, on Flickr

Monte Vettore on the left (peaking at nearly 2,500m above sea), the "great plain" hidden by the fog and the town of Castelluccio just poking through towards the right of the shot. The town was badly hit by the summer earthquake and is now deserted while restoration work tries to shore things up. Aftershocks are still hitting the region and a relatively big one hit while we were driving to the area.
 
Stephen L said:
The real question is, would you actually use such a wide aperture on quite a wide-angle lens? Or are you just tempted by the fact that you could? Tough one, but given the choice of just one of those two lenses my own shooting style would say that the 10-24 would be more useful in the long term. I have the 10-24, and had the 16mm but swapped it for the 14mm for instances when I wanted to reduce shoulder weight. I found that in reality most of my shots tend to be f5.6 or smaller.
Click to expand...

I prefer the 10-24 to the 14mm, quality wise the latter marginally wins it, but versatility and ois give the zoom a clear advantage. Reckon the 10-24, 18-55 and 55-200 are really all the lenses I need, being honest might just as well sell the few primes I own for all the use they get.
 
The 10-24mm is a handy lens to have but the distortion at 10mm is horrendous, even applying lens profiles and manual corrections don't really rectify it. Ok for anything that doesn't have a vertical elevation in for example a door frame or jamb. Ok for landscapes and if the rock is distorted in the foreground then nobody is any the wiser as they haven't seen the original. Distortion aside it's a very good lens beyond 15mm.
 
Last edited:
tijuana taxi said:
I prefer the 10-24 to the 14mm, quality wise the latter marginally wins it, but versatility and ois give the zoom a clear advantage. Reckon the 10-24, 18-55 and 55-200 are really all the lenses I need, being honest might just as well sell the few primes I own for all the use they get.
Click to expand...

You just need the 100-400 for the extra reach and you'll be sorted!!! Truth be known, the 18-135 and 100-400 have now replaced the 18-55 and 55-200 in my bag, I suppose I should really shift them on but can't bring myself to do it.

Blank_Canvas said:
The 10-24mm is a handy lens to have but the distortion at 10mm is horrendous, even applying lens profiles and manual corrections don't really rectify it. Ok for anything that doesn't have a vertical elevation in for example a door frame or jamb. Ok for landscapes and if the rock is distorted in the foreground then nobody is any the wiser as they haven't seen the original. Distortion aside it's a very good lens beyond 15mm.
Click to expand...

Distortion or exaggerated perspective? Just had a look through mine and it seems very well corrected for distortion - door jambs etc. are straight even when placed right at the edge of the frame. Exaggerated perspective is down to the laws of physics.
 
Nod said:
Distortion or exaggerated perspective? Just had a look through mine and it seems very well corrected for distortion - door jambs etc. are straight even when placed right at the edge of the frame. Exaggerated perspective is down to the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

Certainly seemed to have very little distortion as far as I could see. Was pretty impressed in that regard.
 
Yip, 2yrs interest free finance etc.......I nearly swayed.

At Calumet (Glasgow) today I was very impressed with the range of EIZO professional monitors, and the Epson range of professional printers.
 
Last edited:
Is my depth of field gauge working right on my X-T1? For example using my Hyperfocal distance calculator at 18mm f8 the hyperfocal distance is 2.04m. If I use MF and set the focus distance to just over 2m the blue line only extends from 1-3m suggesting that there's only going to be 2m depth of field. If I increase the focus distance the length of the blue bar does not change and only seems to span the distance between 1 marked distance in front and one marked distance behind the focus distance. Obviously at the right edge of the scale the distances are larger so the DOF does increase but not by much. The right side of the blue line doesn't reach infinite until the focus distance is just under 10m making the near point just under 5m.

Does this make sense, and is it working right? The manual states it's supposed to show the depth of focus but clearly it's not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top