The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

badboy1984 said:
Just wanted to check which third party battery brand do you guys use for your XT1? or do you all go for OEM battery?
Click to expand...
I have a few makes, but ExPro, especially the white ones, are my favourite. Maxsima my least favourite as anecdotally (not done formal tests) seem to hold their charge least well.
 
snerkler said:
I'd say my 18-55 is better than my 35mm f1.4 although on saying that I've not done side by side comparisons.
Click to expand...


That surprises me Toby, the 18-55mm is one hell of a good lens but certainly in my case its not quite as sharp as my 35mm F1.4 at the same apertures & FL.(y)

George.
 
Stephen L said:
I have a few makes, but ExPro, especially the white ones, are my favourite. Maxsima my least favourite as anecdotally (not done formal tests) seem to hold their charge least well.
Click to expand...

The Expro one charge on the OEM charger right? or do I have to get the expro charger? I think I can live with one extra for now and I planning to get the white one.
 
badboy1984 said:
The Expro one charge on the OEM charger right? or do I have to get the expro charger? I think I can live with one extra for now and I planning to get the white one.
Click to expand...


They'll charge perfectly well on the OEM charger.(y)

George.
 
I have the white one and two black ones and dont notice any difference in which holds charge best, and they charge fine in the FUJI charger.
 
I only use Fuji charger and haven't experienced any problems :)
 
G.K.Jnr. said:
That surprises me Toby, the 18-55mm is one hell of a good lens but certainly in my case its not quite as sharp as my 35mm F1.4 at the same apertures & FL.(y)

George.
Click to expand...
I'd have to do proper tests George, it might just be that when I've only been using the 35mm wide open. I would imagine stopped down it'd be sharper but I buy fast lenses to shoot wide open ;)
 
snerkler said:
I'd have to do proper tests George, it might just be that when I've only been using the 35mm wide open. I would imagine stopped down it'd be sharper but I buy fast lenses to shoot wide open ;)
Click to expand...

I use the 35mm f2 and that's my only lens on my XT1 at the moment. Maybe a 18mm f2 in the future when I have money. My experience with the camera so far is all indoor with crap light and dull outdoor with crap light too. No choice but to shoot wide open f2. So far I'm impress with the wide open performance.
 
badboy1984 said:
The Expro one charge on the OEM charger right? or do I have to get the expro charger? I think I can live with one extra for now and I planning to get the white one.
Click to expand...
The standard Fuji charger will charge all 3rd party batteries (unless someone knows different) although I have a dual charger which can also fast-charge and shows charge amount in percentage.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Arrrrrggggghhhh my eyes, my eyes :LOL:

Pics look nice enough to me and pretty well balanced light on the 2nd 2 (now first 2) My only real critique would be that you need to work on your bushing skills to remove the background as it's patchy (especially the colour one) and you've got a subtle glow around you.
Click to expand...
The glow is his halo lol
 
Last edited:
Thunderbird010 said:
Went out to walk the dog tonight without the camera, the moon was huge and orange and just over the horizon. Got home and grabbed the camera 10 minutes later but it was nowhere near as good.View attachment 91799
Click to expand...
I saw the same. I got a few shots but am yet to process them, doubt they're much good as I was using the 55-200 at the long end and handholding...
 
Phiggys said:
Shot this last month I used my 67mm Infrared filter as a substitute ND not perfect but reasonable pleased with it.
X T1 18-135mm ois WR

Worthing Pier 2016 by Philip Higgins, on Flickr
Click to expand...

That's a nice look. I don't see a lot of monochrome landscapes in that high key range. Part of me wants to crop out the pier and the sky, but I've been listening to Bruce Percy a lot recently, which may explain it :)
 
Here's another vertical stitch from the weekend, in a very different style from my previous offering. :) And in contrast, this one will print large - the vertical dimension on the original is something like 7500 px. It's the kit 18-55 at about 30mm, four landscape shots stitched vertically. Fuji problems with foliage, eh? :)


Christchurch Meadow, December afternoon by David Hallett, on Flickr
 
Thunderbird010 said:
Went out to walk the dog tonight without the camera, the moon was huge and orange and just over the horizon. Got home and grabbed the camera 10 minutes later but it was nowhere near as good.View attachment 91799
Click to expand...
Apparently when the moon looks like that it's an optical illusion as obviously the moon is not suddenly much closer to the earth. I'm not 100% on the exact conditions needed to see the moon like this, but one of the keys (maybe the only key) is it being close to the horizon. As soon as it moves away from the horizon it starts to look much smaller so I'm guessing in 10mins it'd moved far enough from the horizon to not look as spectacular.

What I'd like to do though is take a picture when it's like this, if it is just an illusion then it should appear no larger in the frame than usual. Would be an interesting test to shoot the moon in isolation with a long telephoto when like this, and then a wider shot taking in some surroundings to try and show it 'appearing' much larger.
 
dave.hallett said:
Here's another vertical stitch from the weekend, in a very different style from my previous offering. :) And in contrast, this one will print large - the vertical dimension on the original is something like 7500 px. It's the kit 18-55 at about 30mm, four landscape shots stitched vertically. Fuji problems with foliage, eh? :)


Christchurch Meadow, December afternoon by David Hallett, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Lovely shot, very medium format feel about it!
 
dave.hallett said:
Here's another vertical stitch from the weekend, in a very different style from my previous offering. :) And in contrast, this one will print large - the vertical dimension on the original is something like 7500 px. It's the kit 18-55 at about 30mm, four landscape shots stitched vertically. Fuji problems with foliage, eh? :)


Christchurch Meadow, December afternoon by David Hallett, on Flickr
Click to expand...


Something I've never tried Dave (stitching shots), but this shot/shots certainly work for me. Some really great detail in there and a well balanced shot as well.(y)

George.
 
Last edited:
Thunderbird010 said:
Went out to walk the dog tonight without the camera, the moon was huge and orange and just over the horizon. Got home and grabbed the camera 10 minutes later but it was nowhere near as good.View attachment 91799
Click to expand...


Works well for me Andy, liking this shot very much.(y)

George.
 
AdzJackson said:
Lovely shot, very medium format feel about it!
Click to expand...
Thanks! If I was made of money, I'd probably buy a Rhinocam, if not an actual MF camera. Though I love the portability of my little Fuji, and wouldn't be without it.

G.K.Jnr. said:
Something I've never tried Dave (stitching shots), but this shot/shots certainly work for me. Some really great detail in there and a well balanced shot as well.(y)

George.
Click to expand...
Thanks George, very kind as ever! I used to stitch more than I do, and there are pros and cons.

Compared with taking the same shot in one exposure at that aperture, you gain resolution but lose depth of field. Sometimes, as in the Brenizer method, the latter is turned from necessity to virtue. Another issue is that it's harder to compose, particularly when stitching very wide. Also, unless you have a pano head and rotate around what is often called the "nodal point" (although I think this is actually an error), there will be parallax issues with close objects. I got away it with here but I wouldn't recommend it for shooting interiors, for example. Lastly, some people will tell you that stitching longer lenses "changes the perspective". Experimentation with a tripod and taking the same composition at three different focal lengths will soon convince you that is this not true!
 
Ok I must stop reading this thread its costing me money! In less than a week I have added three lenses to my Fooj collection. Why? GAS!
 
dave.hallett said:
Thanks George, very kind as ever! I used to stitch more than I do, and there are pros and cons.

Compared with taking the same shot in one exposure at that aperture, you gain resolution but lose depth of field. Sometimes, as in the Brenizer method, the latter is turned from necessity to virtue. Another issue is that it's harder to compose, particularly when stitching very wide. Also, unless you have a pano head and rotate around what is often called the "nodal point" (although I think this is actually an error), there will be parallax issues with close objects. I got away it with here but I wouldn't recommend it for shooting interiors, for example. Lastly, some people will tell you that stitching longer lenses "changes the perspective". Experimentation with a tripod and taking the same composition at three different focal lengths will soon convince you that is this not true!
Click to expand...


Thanks for all the info Dave, very interesting.(y)

George.
 
dave.hallett said:
Very nice! Bit of a Brassai look going on there too, but he wouldn't have had much luck persuading the cat to pose for him :)
Click to expand...

Thanks [must look him up!] Oh she wouldn't pose for me, she was off out on a hunt I followed her to see where she does go - I swear someone else is feeding her on side, the wench :D She was running theother way but doubled back when that car was incoming, that's when I 'snapped' her ;)
 
Thanks lads, I love shots like that, when all isn't clear what's going on, bit of moodiness :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top