The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

Cagey75 said:
I like sharpness, but in certain images it's not important at all. It has it's place sure. being sharp doesn't auto make a good image. Sometimes an image is purposely not sharp, anywhere! You know I was jesting with you, as you know what you're doing [I think! [emoji14] ] I' talking the general pleb gear head who spends more time worried about AF speeds they will never make use of, and think anything over 2 years old is ancient history.

I was doing a wedding a few years back, and one of the guys there was quizzing me on my camera. He was harping on about his phone having 24mp, [it was the first Q he asked "how many MP is that 'thing'?"] I tried to explain to him the MP count meant nothing, it's about the quality of the sensor, the size of the sensor, the processor etc .. he was having none of it. So I told him to take a picture of another guest in the distance, and I took same, then told him to zoom in to 100% - well, his was a mess, where mine was still crisp and clear. I was using a 12mp D90 ... he was a bit sickened and went off in a huff :D It's that type of bell end I mean. They tend to know little about photography, all about the latest and greatest gear.
Click to expand...
I don't take my camera to weddings for that reason due to people asking questions and idiot's. But I also do look at the togs equipment and sometimes wonder why they haven't upgraded to something newer, mainly as are they doing well or just happy.
Have a look on Facebook at Swindon wedding photographers some treats out there
 
ryanyboy said:
I know. It cracks me up. Weddings were being shot on the likes of a Canon 20D or Nikon D2x back in the day and folks were "coping" just fine.

Thanks btw :)
Click to expand...

That is a cracking shot, but, it's not the camera that took that image. Given any camera, I bet the result would be difficult to tell apart!

Cracks me up too. Weddings on Canon 20D or Nikon xxx where shot in a different style. Film cameras were being used to take wedding photos too - but if you look at the albums, the style of 'posed' and 'stand here' (because the light is good) is totally different from the modern documentary / PJ style.

I will be getting a chance to try out the X-T2 at a wedding in the new year but the X-T1 is not up to scratch and before anyone quotes users of such systems such as Kevin Mullins, bear in mind that he admits to having to readjust and change his style - not just pick up the camera and go.
 
Nuzik said:
I don't take my camera to weddings for that reason due to people asking questions and idiot's. But I also do look at the togs equipment and sometimes wonder why they haven't upgraded to something newer, mainly as are they doing well or just happy.
Have a look on Facebook at Swindon wedding photographers some treats out there
Click to expand...

I was the photographer at that one. And don't worry, the D90 was still cool at the time :D I got the same crap when using the D800E and had the 24-70 and 70-200 VRII. I would shoot a wedding using the Fuji gear no problem, if I was to ever commit to do one again [doubtful, I hate them] It wouldn't bother e what the guests thought, they're usually drunken morons at the best of times :asshat::LOL:

dkh said:
I will be getting a chance to try out the X-T2 at a wedding in the new year but the X-T1 is not up to scratch and before anyone quotes users of such systems such as Kevin Mullins, bear in mind that he admits to having to readjust and change his style - not just pick up the camera and go.
Click to expand...

I am going to quote you, because that is complete nonsense. Technique matters most for weddings. And the lenses are more important than the body. The XT-2 does nothing the XT-1 cannot for weddings [using the same lenses]. I've shot weddings with the D90 and a D80 back up. The XT-1 would eat them alive in every dept. It IS about the photographer.
 
Last edited:
dkh said:
That is a cracking shot, but, it's not the camera that took that image. Given any camera, I bet the result would be difficult to tell apart!

Cracks me up too. Weddings on Canon 20D or Nikon xxx where shot in a different style. Film cameras were being used to take wedding photos too - but if you look at the albums, the style of 'posed' and 'stand here' (because the light is good) is totally different from the modern documentary / PJ style.

I will be getting a chance to try out the X-T2 at a wedding in the new year but the X-T1 is not up to scratch and before anyone quotes users of such systems such as Kevin Mullins, bear in mind that he admits to having to readjust and change his style - not just pick up the camera and go.
Click to expand...
No idea who that is, but I agree and find that with the Fuji it isn't a pick up and go like the Nikon is. All cameras have a learning curve and finding limitations isn't a bad thing as it means you can work out how to work around it. I remember when I went from my d5000 to my d700 almost cried and thought it was rubbish took me a few weeks to get used to it, the d750 was just lovely to use but very soulless hence why I sold.
Now back to the Fuji the curve is huge compared to what I am used to, and it's also getting used to grain/noise thays different as well compared to what one is used to. Anyways I've rambled enough
 
I still remember my first step into photography.... the awesome 6.1mp Nikon D40..... :D
There was something about that old CCD sensor which was kind of nice :)
 
Fuguru said:
I still remember my first step into photography.... the awesome 6.1mp Nikon D40..... :D
There was something about that old CCD sensor which was kind of nice :)
Click to expand...

First digital camera....a Fuji of course, MX2900, 2.3MP, even saved TIFF files for better quality, still have it, and it still works from internal rechargeable battery. Shown next to my X100 in 2012

 
I learned the basics of manual control on a Fuji bridge cam, I remember when I started getting annoyed with the f/8, 8 second max exposure and other limits was when I started looking to DSLR - and my first DSLR was actually a Sony
 
Cagey75 said:
Bet you got some nice shots too :)
Click to expand...

Actually. not really... the added FL from the crop made framing a bit tight. I had to drop down to 1/60th second for ISO 3200 (max is 6400 and terrible) - which meant a lot of shots were too blurred as people were dancing around the stage. I kept one shot for purely for the memory of being there :)

Fire Dancers by dancook1982, on Flickr

I'm in the camp of having equipment that's up to the task, sorry if that makes me a less capable photographer :D
 
dancook said:
Actually. not really... the added FL from the crop made framing a bit tight. I had to drop down to 1/60th second for ISO 3200 (max is 6400 and terrible) - which meant a lot of shots were too blurred as people were dancing around the stage. I kept one shot for purely for the memory of being there :)

Fire Dancers by dancook1982, on Flickr

I'm in the camp of having equipment that's up to the task, sorry if that makes me a less capable photographer :D
Click to expand...

Equipment being up to the task was a lot more of an issue years ago. I can't think of one modern mid range to higher end camera that isn't capable for pretty much any given scenario today, combined with half decent technique.

I'm in the realist camp. I think a lot of people over spend on gear they never really make the best of. It's one of the reasons I ditched the D800E and all my old fancy scmancy lenses. Yes, I'd like them for weddings ... but I'm not a pro wedding photographer, most of the time I'm shooting casual stuff just to please myself. I felt it was a bit wasted on me. I'd still feel very comfortable in any shooting environment with the wee XT-1 and the right lens. I certainly do not go along with the more expensive = better.

That guy I posted above with the 200 F2 on the D40 got some cracking images on the night. Everyone asked him why a D40? His answer was "why not?" He had a D90 at home but it was all about the lens that night. At F2 he was able to keep the ISO to 800 max
 
Last edited:
So my boss says he needs to ask me something and immediately I start wondering, "what could it be? He never asks me anything!". As it turns out, he's buying a camera for his University going daughter and wanted my advice between the Nikon D3300 and Canon D1300.

I advised that for the price at the moment, he'd be better off looking at the Fuji X-T10 or the Olympus EM10 mk2 (both of which were coming in under £400).

Was I hasty to dismiss the DSLR's?
 
Cagey75 said:
Equipment being up to the task was a lot more of an issue years ago. I can't think of one modern mid range to higher end camera that isn't capable for pretty much any given scenario today, combined with half decent technique.
Click to expand...

My friend needs a technique in getting a mirrorless camera to autofocus on dimly lit indoor karate sparring :D

Manual focus may be his only real option.. but he's using a 55mm.
 
dancook said:
My friend needs a technique in getting a mirrorless camera to autofocus on dimly lit indoor karate sparring :D

Manual focus may be his only real option.. but he's using a 55mm.
Click to expand...

Unless they are practicing Turbo Street Fighter moves I don't see why any decent mirrorless can't keep up with a fast lens. People move a lot slower than birds or insects and people manage to get sharp shots of the in action.

If he gets as far back as possible, MF might be ideal, be a bit tough to get sharp tight in shots. The best way to MF is to set in around the desired distance, with your shutter speed locked in [1/300+] as high an ISO as you are cofortable with, then pretty much use your body to focus, moving in and out following the action
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
Unless they are practicing Turbo Street Fighter moves I don't see why any decent mirrorless can't keep up with a fast lens. People move a lot slower than birds or insects and people manage to get sharp shots of the in action.

If he gets as far back as possible, MF might be ideal, be a bit tough to get sharp tight in shots
Click to expand...

Have you never experienced the AF hunt?
 
dancook said:
Have you never experienced the AF hunt?
Click to expand...

On what lens? unless they spar by candle light I cannot see it being a big issue.

Sounds to me like he is getting in too close, and they need to pay their electric bill :D
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
On what lens? unless they spar by candle light I cannot see it being a big issue.
Click to expand...

Hes using a7s with 55mm 1.8

They do move around a lot and the kicks happen fast, so not only timing but the AF needs to be quick.
 
Nuzik said:
No idea who that is, but I agree and find that with the Fuji it isn't a pick up and go like the Nikon is. All cameras have a learning curve and finding limitations isn't a bad thing as it means you can work out how to work around it. I remember when I went from my d5000 to my d700 almost cried and thought it was rubbish took me a few weeks to get used to it, the d750 was just lovely to use but very soulless hence why I sold.
Now back to the Fuji the curve is huge compared to what I am used to, and it's also getting used to grain/noise thays different as well compared to what one is used to. Anyways I've rambled enough
Click to expand...

I've never used a Nikon so I may be missing something crucial, but for me the Fujis are by far the easiest cameras to just pick up an go (and I've used Minolta, Sony, Canon and Olympus systems). Maybe it is because I learned photography on a set of old Olympus OM film cameras and the Fuji operate in much the same fashion. And I also don't take photos in unforgiving situations so don't have to worry about high iso issues, slow AF in darkness, delving into menus to make small adjustments to picture styles etc
 
dancook said:
Hes using a7s with 55mm 1.8

They do move around a lot and the kicks happen fast, so not only timing but the AF needs to be quick.
Click to expand...

That's why I think going wider is the key, he's got plenty good enough gear right there. Look at the UFC, the photographers are outside the cage, mostly having to shoot through the wire. , Often the wider action shots are the better ones. They do manage to get in tight with bigger lenses, but they're also shooting under pretty bright overhead lighting too. And I'm sure it's not fluorescent bulbs :D The wider the aperture the further back you want to be for action anyway. A 55 is probably pretty tight in a small hall. He needs to get back up to the wall and get both fighters in frame, allow for a bit of cropping.
 
I took my XT1 with 35mm f2 out yesterday to have a walk around in the xmas market with wife and baby. Camera performance is great, no problem with AF speed, ISO noise is also fantastic. I have one problem but this is all down to technique.

When I use a DSLR like my D3 I tend to use centre focus and then recompose. Images is sharp (even wide open) and have no problem when review on my computer. Use the same trick on the XT1 I tend to get a bit soft image sometimes. Changing focus point is spot on without a problem. Shooting my baby that moves her head a lot is very difficult ......

I think the image resolution might play a part when I looking at it 100%.

I need to practice more on the Fuji to nail the focus. I got to admit shooting with the Fuji is different but is also very fun. Nothing better then walking on the street with the Fuji and it doesn't distract people. I look like a tourist rather then a pro (if I bring the D3 out).
 
Last edited:
badboy1984 said:
I took my XT1 with 35mm f2 out yesterday to have a walk around in the xmas market with wife and baby. Camera performance is great, no problem with AF speed, ISO noise is also fantastic. I have one problem but this is all down to technique.

When I use a DSLR like my D3 I tend to use centre focus and then recompose. Images is sharp (even wide open) and have no problem when review on my computer. Use the same trick on the XT1 I tend to get a bit soft image sometimes. Changing focus point is spot on without a problem. Shooting my baby that moves her head a lot is very difficult ......

I think the image resolution might play a part when I looking at it 100%.

I need to practice more on the Fuji to nail the focus. I got to admit shooting with the Fuji is different but is also very fun. Nothing better then walking on the street with the Fuji and it doesn't distract people. I look like a tourist rather then a pro (if I bring the D3 out).
Click to expand...
The focus lock is right where your thumb is. Try the eye detection too. Was trying this out this morning and it was working ok.
 
Nuzik said:
No idea who that is, but I agree and find that with the Fuji it isn't a pick up and go like the Nikon is. All cameras have a learning curve and finding limitations isn't a bad thing as it means you can work out how to work around it. I remember when I went from my d5000 to my d700 almost cried and thought it was rubbish took me a few weeks to get used to it, the d750 was just lovely to use but very soulless hence why I sold.
Now back to the Fuji the curve is huge compared to what I am used to, and it's also getting used to grain/noise thays different as well compared to what one is used to. Anyways I've rambled enough
Click to expand...
I'm surprised by this, I've not found the Fuji any more or less difficult to get to grips with than any other camera TBH, including the D750 :confused:

dancook said:
I'm in the camp of having equipment that's up to the task, sorry if that makes me a less capable photographer :D
Click to expand...
Always knew you were an amateur Dan :whistle:;)

Joking aside I don't fully buy the comment it's all down to the tog. Yes you could get shots with the old equipment and yes they look very nice, but modern gear also helps you get shots that you couldn't before and also gives you a better keeper rate.

I went to Chatsworth House on Wednesday and thank god I took my D750. Light in the house was extremely low and at times I was at 6400 ISO and 1/30 at f4 and it was still slightly underexposed. Yes I could have got some shots with the XT1 but they'd have been noisy and I'd have missed quite a few due to the AF hunting. In fact I dare say it might not have locked at all. Same tog, same technique, different results. So IMO it's not all down to the tog for some shots.
 
snerkler said:
I'm surprised by this, I've not found the Fuji any more or less difficult to get to grips with than any other camera TBH, including the D750 :confused:


Always knew you were an amateur Dan :whistle:;)

Joking aside I don't fully buy the comment it's all down to the tog. Yes you could get shots with the old equipment and yes they look very nice, but modern gear also helps you get shots that you couldn't before and also gives you a better keeper rate.

I went to Chatsworth House on Wednesday and thank god I took my D750. Light in the house was extremely low and at times I was at 6400 ISO and 1/30 at f4 and it was still slightly underexposed. Yes I could have got some shots with the XT1 but they'd have been noisy and I'd have missed quite a few due to the AF hunting. In fact I dare say it might not have locked at all. Same tog, same technique, different results. So IMO it's not all down to the tog for some shots.
Click to expand...

You just need better technique....

But really I don't EVER want to be frustrated by my equipment, I also don't want to have to compromise. If I want up close and personal but the focusing can't keep up, then that's down to the camera being stupid :D - but really i know there are options, pre-focusing on things that will be in the same focal plane when i take the shot..

I should just buy 1dx-II ;) but it's too late now .. the Leica SL has the same problem most other mirrorless cameras have, in that the continuous autofocus sucks particularly in dim lighting - always with less accuracy and movement from subject than the 5dm3 and D750 ever did.
 
Last edited:
dkh said:
That is a cracking shot, but, it's not the camera that took that image. Given any camera, I bet the result would be difficult to tell apart!
Click to expand...

Agreed.

dkh said:
Cracks me up too. Weddings on Canon 20D or Nikon xxx where shot in a different style. Film cameras were being used to take wedding photos too - but if you look at the albums, the style of 'posed' and 'stand here' (because the light is good) is totally different from the modern documentary / PJ style..
Click to expand...

Disagree. Camera's haven't changed the current trend in photography styles. Photographers have. Documentary & photo journalism has been around decades, wedding photographers didn't invent that type of photography.

dkh said:
I will be getting a chance to try out the X-T2 at a wedding in the new year but the X-T1 is not up to scratch and before anyone quotes users of such systems such as Kevin Mullins, bear in mind that he admits to having to readjust and change his style - not just pick up the camera and go.
Click to expand...

I've not used an X-T1 so I can't comment but I've used an X-T2 and an X-Pro 2 at a wedding and they were completely "up to scratch".
 
rjbell said:
The focus lock is right where your thumb is. Try the eye detection too. Was trying this out this morning and it was working ok.
Click to expand...

Only thing I haven't try yesterday. I tend to use back button focus on my D3. For some reason I use the shutter button to focus. I will try the back button focus to see. I got to admit altho I really like the 35mm f2 in general but I think I will get the 18mm f2 as well. I could use the wide end on some occasion. On the Fuji Ihink the 18mm along with my 35mm will do 99% of the stuff I want when using the XT1.
 
snerkler said:
I'm surprised by this, I've not found the Fuji any more or less difficult to get to grips with than any other camera TBH, including the D750 :confused:


Always knew you were an amateur Dan :whistle:;)

Joking aside I don't fully buy the comment it's all down to the tog. Yes you could get shots with the old equipment and yes they look very nice, but modern gear also helps you get shots that you couldn't before and also gives you a better keeper rate.

I went to Chatsworth House on Wednesday and thank god I took my D750. Light in the house was extremely low and at times I was at 6400 ISO and 1/30 at f4 and it was still slightly underexposed. Yes I could have got some shots with the XT1 but they'd have been noisy and I'd have missed quite a few due to the AF hunting. In fact I dare say it might not have locked at all. Same tog, same technique, different results. So IMO it's not all down to the tog for some shots.
Click to expand...

Could you give an example please?
 
ryanyboy said:
Could you give an example please?
Click to expand...

I shot an awards ceremony, I had photos of people walking from their tables to the stage, unlit (no spotlight lol). ISO 12800, 1/200th, 1.8 - yet the D750 c-af kept up with them and the ISO meant I could provide sharp clean photos, I'd even have multiple to choose from as you can't control expressions of everyone...

on the stage the light was iso 320, 1/200th, 1.8 :)
 
Last edited:
Unless the D750 is remarkably better than the D800E for ISO handling, I am doubting they were 'clean' pre-processing. I shot gigs with the D800 up to 10K ISO, but they needed work.

The XT-1 is not an ISO beast, that is for certain. But I rarely ever find situations where I'd need to go above 3200, and it is completely fine up to that point. And to reiterate what many who have experience with both have said, the XT-2 doesn't do anything end image wise above the 1.

Not many sensors out there beat the D800E, and I'm being completely honest when I say I don't feel I'm missing much. I think the XT-1 can hold it's own even against that, even to impress pixel peepers. It would most definitely hold up against D3 images in half decent lighting.

Now I am crushing some nuts here and setting up a snap-trap to see if I can capture some birdies - this time with the window open ... Brrrrr ... :D:coldfeet:
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
Unless the D750 is remarkably better than the D800E for ISO handling, I am doubting they were 'clean' pre-processing. I shot gigs with the D800 up to 10K ISO, but they needed work.

The XT-1 is not an ISO beast, that is for certain. But I rarely ever find situations where I'd need to go above 3200, and it is completely fine up to that point.
Click to expand...

what we mean by 'Clean' is subjective, but my 12,800 are pretty clean to me on flickr, I will pm you a link for example.

I'm shooting weddings and events, 12,800 is pretty common and that's at f1.8.
 
Last edited:
dancook said:
what we mean by 'Clean' is subjective, but my 12,800 are pretty clean to me on flickr, I will pm you a link for example.

I'm shooting weddings and events, 12,800 is pretty common and that's at f1.8.
Click to expand...

What I mean by clean is, doesn't require any NR in post, or at least not much. I don't mind grain at all, so long as it doesn't interfere with the image - it can do say in portraits, if the eyes are muddied up with noise, or any kind of detail shot like macro. You want them as super clean as possible, which is why macro shooters almost always use off cam flash. You will never shoot proper macro at high ISO. B&W is a great way to counter noise too, because the grain can add character, and you can push contrast and clarity levels a lot more with B&W.
 
Cagey75 said:
What I mean by clean is, doesn't require any NR in post, or at least not much. I don't mind grain at all, so long as it doesn't interfere with the image - it can do say in portraits, if the eyes are muddied up with noise, or any kind of detail shot like macro. You want them as super clean as possible, which is why macro shooters almost always use off cam flash. You will never shoot proper macro at high ISO. B&W is a great way to counter noise too, because the grain can add character, and you can push contrast and clarity levels a lot more with B&W.
Click to expand...
See you now say clean you don't mind grain. I for one dont class grain as clean.
And maybe the xt1 is far better than the xt2 as f*** I'm shooting well above 3200!
Trade anyone..
 
ryanyboy said:
Could you give an example please?
Click to expand...

snerkler said:
Clean images at 12800 for one.
Click to expand...

Sorry didn't have much time to reply before as was at the dentist. Another time when gear has enabled me to get shots that I otherwise couldn't is when I've been shooting the London Marathon for Arthritis Research UK. You have to pick their runners out of the crowd of thousands and you have to spot them in a gap in the crowd, frame them, lock focus and hopefully take more than one pic before they disappear behind another runner or runners, sometimes giving you literally a second to do all this This requires IMMEDIATE af lock on 99% reliability on tracking focus as you may only get the one chance. Try doing this on older AF systems or MF when shooting at f2.8 at 200mm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dkh
Nuzik said:
See you now say clean you don't mind grain. I for one dont class grain as clean.
And maybe the xt1 is far better than the xt2 as f*** I'm shooting well above 3200!
Trade anyone..
Click to expand...


Who says I have to stick to one, I'm talking for different type images. Did you read ALL of my post? I actually state what type of images 'I' like 'clean'. You'll find I'm not the one over worrying about it to start ;) 3200 is well fine on the Fujis, because I don't mind some grain. But above 6400 is never what i would consider 'clean'. From any camera!
 
Cagey75 said:
Unless the D750 is remarkably better than the D800E for ISO handling, I am doubting they were 'clean' pre-processing. I shot gigs with the D800 up to 10K ISO, but they needed work.

The XT-1 is not an ISO beast, that is for certain. But I rarely ever find situations where I'd need to go above 3200, and it is completely fine up to that point. And to reiterate what many who have experience with both have said, the XT-2 doesn't do anything end image wise above the 1.

Not many sensors out there beat the D800E, and I'm being completely honest when I say I don't feel I'm missing much. I think the XT-1 can hold it's own even against that, even to impress pixel peepers. It would most definitely hold up against D3 images in half decent lighting.

Now I am crushing some nuts here and setting up a snap-trap to see if I can capture some birdies - this time with the window open ... Brrrrr ... :D:coldfeet:
Click to expand...
The D750 is just under 1 stop better ISO handling than the D800E, if you believe tests like this.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...=1&x=0.1312927631284066&y=-0.9790009973890715

But no, of course there'll be noise at this level, but it's all to do with what is acceptable to the individual, and/or how much NR in post you can do before the image starts to look soft or watercoloured. As I mentioned above I was having to shoot at 6400 and 12800 the other day (didn't have a tripod) and I wouldn't have got acceptable (for me) images with the XT1. I don't mind noise, within reason, and it can actually enhance certain images.

I don't want to get into a camera vs camera debate, especially as both are superb, each have pros and cons, and I love using both of them. The only reason for mentioning it is that some folk say that gear doesn't matter, but it can/does :p
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
The D750 is just under 1 stop better ISO handling than the D800E, if you believe tests like this.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...=1&x=0.1312927631284066&y=-0.9790009973890715

But no, of course there'll be noise at this level, but it's all to do with what is acceptable to the individual, and/or how much NR in post you can do before the image starts to look soft or watercoloured. As I mentioned above I was having to shoot at 6400 and 12800 the other day (didn't have a tripod) and I wouldn't have got acceptable (for me) images with the XT1. I don't mind noise, within reason, and it can actually enhance certain images.

I don't want to get into a camera vs camera debate, especially as both are superb, each have pros and cons, and I love using both of them. The only reason for mentioning it is that some folk say that gear doesn't matter, but it can/does :p
Click to expand...


Proper gear heads would tell me I'm crazy for 'dropping' to a Fuji after having the D800 since release. I would tell them with no hesitation, I'm actually all the happier for it. Maybe because now I can blame the 'lesser' gear when I produce crappy images? :D
 
Cagey75 said:
Proper gear heads would tell me I'm crazy for 'dropping' to a Fuji after having the D800 since release. I would tell them with no hesitation, I'm actually all the happier for it. Maybe because now I can blame the 'lesser' gear when I produce crappy images? :D
Click to expand...
Nope, it's all to do with whichever you prefer using and suits your needs. Just because it's the best (or better) gear doesn't mean it's nice to use, or right for the individual. The D810 is arguably a better camera than my D750 but I prefer the D750 and chose that.

And I'm sure your images aren't "crappy" ;)
 
For me, going back to Nikon (D750) and now the D810 the biggest reason was for lens availability due to the 100-400mm continually being delayed and the AF system. I tried the XT-2 against my D810 a few weeks ago and I found the EVF a pain in bright light against the D810 OVF, the Jackdaws I was tracking were just a black blob. I used to love the XT-1 EVF previously.

I loved the the XT-1, Xpro-1, XE-1 etc... I have owned, but IMO I wouldn't have got some of the bird shots I have had with the D750 /D810............On the flip side, perhaps some of the more candid shots I wouldn't have got with the DXXX cameras. They both have their different roles for different people.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top