The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

Cagey75 said:
Remember when looking at comparisons, older reviews will be judging the 1.4 pre-firmware. And it's only issue before that was slow AF. I find it quick enough on the XT-1, it'll be nippy on the XT-2 and XT20 you have. General consensus is that the 1.4 is sharper up to 2.8, and from there they are about the same. Looked at tonnes of reviews myself before deciding. What the F2 has is WR, which IMO is over rated - it's got faster and quieter AF .... and, that's it tbh. There's a stop of light difference, and this is also why the 1.4 is sharper at F2, it is already stopped down. And a subjective thing, the 1.4 looks a bit more like a proper lens - I find the new F2 models a bit ... odd - I still want the 50 F2 though :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

I did have a look at the 50mm f2 and 56 f 1.2 :) Glad I got some time to look at reviews.
 
Dave70D said:
I did have a look at the 50mm f2 and 56 f 1.2 :) Glad I got some time to look at reviews.
Click to expand...


Here's a wedding photographer that uses both:


He makes a good point, that extra stop can be the difference between ISO 800 and 1600 comparing both lenses wide open - which is the only way he uses them.
 
Cagey75 said:
That's not good :confused: lucky escape, but if you had bashed your camera I doubt Optech would cough up
Click to expand...

To be fair, I think it's more to do with the eyelet, must be fairly rough inside and guessing that's why they provide the split rings
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
Rich, I presume you mean the fixed eyelet on the body of the camera? Not the triangular split rings that go through them for the strap to fix to?
I've swapped the triangles for round rings from my legacy Olympus OM1. They don't seem to chafe. Long live legacy gear!!!
 
Cagey75 said:
Here's a wedding photographer that uses both:


He makes a good point, that extra stop can be the difference between ISO 800 and 1600 comparing both lenses wide open - which is the only way he uses them.
Click to expand...


Just watched that, cheers Keith he does like to shoot wide open you could tell, plus trying not to use to high iso is important for me.
 
mickledore said:
Rich, I presume you mean the fixed eyelet on the body of the camera? Not the triangular split rings that go through them for the strap to fix to?
I've swapped the triangles for round rings from my legacy Olympus OM1. They don't seem to chafe. Long live legacy gear!!!
Click to expand...

Yes Frank, the fixed eyelet on the body which on closer inspection seems to have an insert. I will get some connectors from a fishing tackle shop, made my own traces for sea fishing and thinking of quick change clips. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Quick-Lin...hash=item23464d2702:m:mZQ3KSBGXjEgJ6t8QE8Qchg
 
Last edited:
Dave70D said:
Just watched that, cheers Keith he does like to shoot wide open you could tell, plus trying not to use to high iso is important for me.
Click to expand...

Funny that he brought up the 50mm Vs what we view with our eyes too :LOL: Not sure where he's seeing the 1.4 at twice the price though, maybe it was at the time? But atm on amazon there's £100 in the difference, and they have used 1.4 around the price of a new F2. Used around classifieds on forums like this, they're even closer in price.
 
Last edited:
Dave70D said:
Question for you folks, the 35mm gives the same view of the human eye. Today I took a few shots with the XF 18-55mm set at 35mm, when I had a look I thought it`s wrong ie, it was not the same view as my eyes ?
Click to expand...

That was always mooted about 35mm film - that it mimicked the angle of view of the human eye and so looked more "natural". On an apsc sensor that would mean you'd need to be shooting at 23mm to get the 35mm equivalent. Maybe try shooting a bunch of stuff at 23mm and see if that looks "righter" :)
 
ashtennisguru said:
That was always mooted about 35mm film - that it mimicked the angle of view of the human eye and so looked more "natural". On an apsc sensor that would mean you'd need to be shooting at 23mm to get the 35mm equivalent. Maybe try shooting a bunch of stuff at 23mm and see if that looks "righter" :)
Click to expand...
Thought it was supposed to be 50mm for human eye view, that was why so many 35mm slr's came with that focal length lens.
 
Mezza said:
Anyone got the 50-230mm and if so what is your opinion of it, please?
Click to expand...

I did have and it was very good, mine was the later Mkii version which is supposed to have a bit better OIS.
Have to say, if you can afford it get the 55-200, it is better in every respect and worth the extra outlay
 
Mezza said:
Anyone got the 50-230mm and if so what is your opinion of it, please?
Click to expand...

It's not bad, you're only ever going to use it in decent outdoor lighting though. The 55-200 is a lot better but if you're talking a MK1 used 50-230, the 55-200 is not £400 better. I sold a mk1 on here for £110, if you can find one at that price dive on it. The MKII is pricier and you don't see them used much, which is a good sign for the lens.
 
Dave70D said:
Thinking about the airshow I did with using the 50-230mm I was well chuffed so I will drop the 55-200mm. Now I just have to think 35mm f2 or 35mm f1.4 :) I will do some review looking as I have been told/read that the 35mm f2 can just take the edge from the 1.4.
Click to expand...

The F2 has faster AF and is weather resistant, the F1.4 has the slightly better IQ and obviously goes to 1.4
 
Last edited:
Dave70D said:
Plus with the 50-230mm you do get that little bit longer, imo it is one very good lens and that is the reason why I wont get the 55-20mm which is also a good lens I think but for me I am over the moon with the IQ and reach of the XC lens and its pretty good for wildlife too :)
Click to expand...
Sounds good. You air show photos are excellent. Thanks for the reply.
 
Mezza said:
Anyone got the 50-230mm and if so what is your opinion of it, please?
Click to expand...

Optically the 50-230 is very good (the 55-200 just edges it), but it feels cheap (as its a plastic bodied lens), but it is light!! Aperture control through rear dial, not on lens so handling is different than XF lenses as well (excluding XF27)

A few pictures here https://www.flickr.com/photos/89667368@N05/albums/72157645439126243 if you are interested. 'my lens' is now owned by @ianmarsh, I sold it as I'm not really a telephoto shooter!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
Mr Perceptive said:
Optically the 50-230 is very good (the 55-200 just edges it), but it feels cheap (as its a plastic bodied lens), but it is light!! Aperture control through rear dial, not on lens so handling is different than XF lenses as well (excluding XF27)

A few pictures here https://www.flickr.com/photos/89667368@N05/albums/72157645439126243 if you are interested. 'my lens' is now owned by @ianmarsh, I sold it as I'm not really a telephoto shooter!
Click to expand...

And I am very pleased David sold me his lens! My brother has the 55-200 and I found I liked it more than I thought I would as I was only shooting with prime lenses. But I didn't want to spend too much so thought I'd try the 50-230. I only use it to shoot well stopped down, usually on a tripod and I cannot see anything to complain about. In fact I liked it so much I bought the 16-50XC lens to go with it and these two plus my XT1 is my main travel kit now.

A couple of recent shots with the 50-230:

St Basil's I by Ian, on Flickr

Cicconi sunset 2 by Ian, on Flickr
 
Can only echo previous comments about the 50-230/55-200. The 50-230 is cheaper and that's its only scoring point. The extra 30mm is negligible IRL (IMO!) and the lightness feels cheap and plasticky. I bought mine for the little extra reach and the lightness (2nd hand) and used it for 2 shots before deciding I didn't like it (I'd already been spoiled by the reassuring feel of the 55-200).
 
ianmarsh said:
And I am very pleased David sold me his lens! My brother has the 55-200 and I found I liked it more than I thought I would as I was only shooting with prime lenses. But I didn't want to spend too much so thought I'd try the 50-230. I only use it to shoot well stopped down, usually on a tripod and I cannot see anything to complain about. In fact I liked it so much I bought the 16-50XC lens to go with it and these two plus my XT1 is my main travel kit now.

A couple of recent shots with the 50-230:

St Basil's I by Ian, on Flickr

Cicconi sunset 2 by Ian, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Superb! Just goes to show that you don't need to spend a fortune on lenses, so long as they're made by Fuji ;)
 
Going back to the discussion about the human eye, I thought 40-42mm was supposed to be closest to our own vision? My wife used the 27/2.8 exclusively for 18 months for candid shots of kids, and it worked perfectly for that. Equivalent for 27mm is around 41mm...
 
Just left my X-T2 for a sensor cleaning today. Im just amazed by the amount of dirt i had on my sensor.

My previous nikon didn't collect that amount XD

BTW guys, the covers for the Vertical power grip connector and the fuji x-t2 connector, can you buy it separately ? and I dont mean the hotshoe cover.

Because the only covers i found are these ones: https://www.castlecameras.co.uk/fujifilm-cvr-xt2-cover-kit

Cheers
 
Another from the 50mm F2, (it's not been off my camera since I got it!).

This was taken on an impromptu walk out with my oldest two yesterday. It's getting shots like this that remind me that size and portability is one of the reasons why I switched to mirrorless. I know for a fact that I wouldn't have been bothered taking a DSLR out with us on a quick trip like this, but the X-T2 and 50mm are light enough that I take them pretty much everywhere.

BOYS by Greg Basher, on Flickr
 
Dave70D said:
Rain stopped play today, so three from yesterday.



The Fisherman by David Ore, on Flickr



The Busker by David Ore, on Flickr



On the Phone by David Ore, on Flickr
Click to expand...


Very nice set of Fujigraphs Sir, particularly liking the muso shot. If I'm not mistaken isn't the pic of the guy sitting texting right outside the entrance to the i360 as it looks to be exactly the spot I took my snap of the i360 from. And the guy doin' a bit of fishing I'm sure is on the jetty next to the pier as I took a snap of him a couple of weeks past but I'll not post mine as yours is much better.(y)

"I was working up on the Devils Dyke doin' some F1 promo shots a couple of Saturdays ago and got to head on downtown afterwards for a bit of a walkabout and take a few snaps":D

George.
 
OK, just back from Digital Splash, had a very interesting conversation with Fuji Technical Guy about X RAW Studio and LR

X RAW Studio - offers JPG conversion of RAW files using a tethered camera as the processing engine. It will have no more adjustments available than are in camera at the moment, but it will offer batch processing, so you will be able to convert a group of RAW files to a Fuji JPG setting. If you shoot RAW+JPG it will not offer you anything that you haven't already got in JPG unless you wanted to retrospectively change the JPG settings. Essentially is a different way of converting files, it will be quite efficient but offers very little flexibility unlike something like LR

Regarding LR, Fuji actually worked up front with Adobe to ensure that X-Trans3 processing was handled correctly. This was done prior to X-Pro2 release which explains why I'm seeing X-Trans3 images as being better than previous X-Trans3 sensors.

He also confirmed my thoughts regarding High ISO with X-Trans3, in the fact that the noise presented is different in nature to previous X-Trans sensors and easier to clean up. I said that I regularly shoot up to 6400 and occasionally 12800, and he replied that his main Auto-ISO setting was up to 12,800!!!!

Hope that all helps.....
 
Last edited:
G.K.Jnr. said:
Very nice set of Fujigraphs Sir, particularly liking the muso shot. If I'm not mistaken isn't the pic of the guy sitting texting right outside the entrance to the i360 as it looks to be exactly the spot I took my snap of the i360 from. And the guy doin' a bit of fishing I'm sure is on the jetty next to the pier as I took a snap of him a couple of weeks past but I'll not post mine as yours is much better.(y)

"I was working up on the Devils Dyke doin' some F1 promo shots a couple of Saturdays ago and got to head on downtown afterwards for a bit of a walkabout and take a few snaps":D

George.
Click to expand...

Thank you George for the nice words, in the early 80s I use to work up on Devils Dyke golf club. On the bloke texting he is down the stairs and near the Alfresco cafe :)
 
tijuana taxi said:
This museum was shut when I was up there end of July, looks interesting, maybe next time.

Just bought one of those knitted wrist straps you are so keen on, my current one uses the now disgraced Mini QD loop
Click to expand...
Website says museum closed on 20th June "Until further notice"! From my visit there last year I deduced that it could not have been paying it's way. Shame because it was very interesting. I suspect it may never reopen. God, or Allah, alone knows what they can do with a building 20 feet underground surrounded by 6 feet of reinforced concrete with only one entry and exit. Elfin safety will have a field day. Always assuming it is not a listed building which I suspect it might be.

We were looking at the eyelets today. Pretty small and rough on the T2. No inserts at all. What are you on? X-E2?
We both use rings. Maybe you should too. Plenty on e-bay.
 
OOPS. Pressed the button too soon. If you can cancel your order I have a spare strap sat here doing nothing. Holler if you want it.
 
mickledore said:
Website says museum closed on 20th June "Until further notice"! From my visit there last year I deduced that it could not have been paying it's way. Shame because it was very interesting. I suspect it may never reopen. God, or Allah, alone knows what they can do with a building 20 feet underground surrounded by 6 feet of reinforced concrete with only one entry and exit. Elfin safety will have a field day. Always assuming it is not a listed building which I suspect it might be.

We were looking at the eyelets today. Pretty small and rough on the T2. No inserts at all. What are you on? X-E2?
We both use rings. Maybe you should too. Plenty on e-bay.
Click to expand...

Shame about the museum, these places need preserving for future generations

Yes, that was on a X-E2, but suspect the other models are equally rough, using the supplied triangular rings for now.

Very kind offer of the strap, thank you, but would feel mean cancelling now,
 
Last edited:
Hi,

After a long time away from photography, I have just bought a Fuji setup. Fuji XT-10 body, Fuji 16-50mm lens and Fuji 55-200mm lens all for £560. All in immaculate condition and fully boxed. Does that sound a good price?

Matt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top