The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

Hi guys. I wonder if I could share some of my problems with the XT-1 and look for tips.

Firstly I don't know why this keeps happening, but I regularly find the exposure dial has moved. I'm not consciously aware of knocking or moving it.

Do you guys find a similar problem, and if so, apart from double checking the dial before taking a shot, are there any other ways you use to prevent this?
 
souldeep said:
Hi guys. I wonder if I could share some of my problems with the XT-1 and look for tips.

Firstly I don't know why this keeps happening, but I regularly find the exposure dial has moved. I'm not consciously aware of knocking or moving it.

Do you guys find a similar problem, and if so, apart from double checking the dial before taking a shot, are there any other ways you use to prevent this?
Click to expand...

It's a well known 'issue' and often happens to me - I just check it in the viewfinder when I compose.
 
souldeep said:
Hi guys. I wonder if I could share some of my problems with the XT-1 and look for tips.

Firstly I don't know why this keeps happening, but I regularly find the exposure dial has moved. I'm not consciously aware of knocking or moving it.

Do you guys find a similar problem, and if so, apart from double checking the dial before taking a shot, are there any other ways you use to prevent this?
Click to expand...

Part of the beauty of the Fuji system is with a quick look at the top of the camera you can see aperture, shutter speed and iso (and composure comp). Just get in the habit of looking whenever you pick it up. It shouldn’t move once you have it in your hands unless you purposely move it.
 
Thanks - you've helped me establish it's not a problem with the dial on only my camera. Will just get in the habit of double checking before taking a photo.
 
Last edited:
On another question. I'm having a real struggle with sharp images in low light. I messed up getting photos of my daughters first dance show on stage. When I was zooming in I noticed the images were blurry. In a panic I tried to set it to AUTO. With my old X10 I could just switch onto auto if I didn't want to think, it did excellent in low light. It doesn't seem there is the equivalent on the XT-1?
 
souldeep said:
On another question. I'm having a real struggle with sharp images in low light. I messed up getting photos of my daughters first dance show on stage. When I was zooming in I noticed the images were blurry. In a panic I tried to set it to AUTO. With my old X10 I could just switch onto auto if I didn't want to think, it did excellent in low light. It doesn't seem there is the equivalent on the XT-1?
Click to expand...
There isn't. The best you could do is set auto ISO and shoot wide open using aperture priority.

Question is, is it motion blur? If it is and you were shooting wide open already, you need to ramp up that ISO to compensate.
 
Thank you. That's a shame, Sometimes you just need to react to a situation without thinking. I have found it rather complicated as a camera. I guess it's just practise makes it second nature. With my X10 I became so familiar with everything I no longer had to think. Maybe setting up function keys would help me.

It was blur and shake - different photos different problems. I was watching the show, and trying to get images - didn't really want to focus on what the hell I was doing wrong on my camera. An AUTO function would really help in those situations. I guess you guys would all frown upon me for just saying that though :(
 
souldeep said:
Thank you. That's a shame, Sometimes you just need to react to a situation without thinking. I have found it rather complicated as a camera. I guess it's just practise makes it second nature. With my X10 I became so familiar with everything I no longer had to think. Maybe setting up function keys would help me.

It was blur and shake - different photos different problems. I was watching the show, and trying to get images - didn't really want to focus on what the hell I was doing wrong on my camera. An AUTO function would really help in those situations. I guess you guys would all frown upon me for just saying that though :(
Click to expand...
Not at all. I would say that perhaps an X-T10 or X-T20 would serve you better though as these have the same sensor but are a little more user friendly and have that 'auto' button where you feel you need it.

The alternative is you persevere with this camera, learn how to set it up and assign buttons and use it properly. It will take time for these to become second nature to you and I'd recommend you do the latter as you'll find it not only improves your results but your understanding of photography/your gear as well.
.
 
After some chat on here about bracketing, I had a play at my local lake this morning. It has a reviver running behind it that I though may make a good image, however I'm not that happy with it.

Little Britain by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

I made a couple of silly mistakes.

1) The lens is set at f22 - Why I don't know but I didn't check.
2) 7 shots on a moving river probably isn't the best idea is it?... The time between shot 1 & 7 was a couple of seconds - more than enough time for stuff to move.

Even @ f22, the DoF doesn't seem that great....

The B&W edit looked a lot better that the colour.

Edit: Colour version added...

Little Britain2 by Steve Jelly, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Jelster said:
After some chat on here about bracketing, I had a play at my local lake this morning. It has a reviver running behind it that I though may make a good image, however I'm not that happy with it.

Little Britain by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

I made a couple of silly mistakes.

1) The lens is set at f22 - Why I don't know but I didn't check.
2) 7 shots on a moving river probably isn't the best idea is it?... The time between shot 1 & 7 was a couple of seconds - more than enough time for stuff to move.

Even @ f22, the DoF doesn't seem that great....

The B&W edit looked a lot better that the colour.

Edit: Colour version added...

Little Britain2 by Steve Jelly, on Flickr
Click to expand...


What were you trying To achieve.
I do not see how a 7 shot bracket would help in any way, as the subject matter's tonality would be easily contained within a single exposure anyway.

As a shot it is not interesting enough to stand on its own feet, and it has no point of interest to base a composition around.

As to focus you probably did not set the Hypo-focal distance correctly, and set your focus unnecessarily close, to be able take advantage of the maximum depth of field.

You would not expect scintillating sharpness at F22 as it would be diffraction limited at that aperture. But the depth should have coped front to back.
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
What were you trying To achieve.
I do not see how a 7 shot bracket would help in any way, as the subject matter's tonality would be easily contained within a single exposure anyway.

As a shot it is not interesting enough to stand on its own feet, and it has no point of interest to base a composition around.
Click to expand...
Agreed, Terry. What it may have benefited from is some focus stacking to get the trees and foreground as sharp as possible, but that's a whole other ball game!

The fact it's been shot at f22 probably hasn't helped with some diffraction likely you'd think? I usually won't go above f16 as an absolute maximum, f13 under normal circumstances.
 
It is IMO nice enough but maybe the main issue is the lighting. One a different day with different lighting it could be a different outcome.
 
Ian W said:
Agreed, Terry. What it may have benefited from is some focus stacking to get the trees and foreground as sharp as possible, but that's a whole other ball game!

The fact it's been shot at f22 probably hasn't helped with some diffraction likely you'd think? I usually won't go above f16 as an absolute maximum, f13 under normal circumstances.
Click to expand...

Focus stacking would have helped even as a two shot stack, one for the foreground and one for the canopy of trees. A middle one would not have helped as the water is moving.

I took the shot below a couple of weeks ago at 30mm @ F16 and Depth of field was more than adequate and with some signs of diffraction. His shot at 16 mm @22 should have covered rather better than it has.

_DSF4021X by Terry Andrews, on Flickr
 
Thanks for the feedback.

Agreed, it wasn't the right subject to use the bracketing system. I was trying to maintain some foreground interest, but the light wasn't the best. A shot a cross the lake probably would have been a better example, due to the shadows under the over hanging trees, and the bright sky.

I must of turned the aperture ring on the lens at some point, and as I was on 1 knee with the body on the floor, I couldn't read all the details on the rear screen, even though it was tilted up towards me.

I guess I just wanted to play with the bracketing function as I haven't used it before... I'll go and find a better subject....
 
Jelster said:
Thanks for the feedback.

Agreed, it wasn't the right subject to use the bracketing system. I was trying to maintain some foreground interest, but the light wasn't the best. A shot a cross the lake probably would have been a better example, due to the shadows under the over hanging trees, and the bright sky.

I must of turned the aperture ring on the lens at some point, and as I was on 1 knee with the body on the floor, I couldn't read all the details on the rear screen, even though it was tilted up towards me.

I guess I just wanted to play with the bracketing function as I haven't used it before... I'll go and find a better subject....
Click to expand...
I find I can only really get away with bracketing from a tripod. Worth using if you have one [emoji106]
 
souldeep said:
On another question. I'm having a real struggle with sharp images in low light. I messed up getting photos of my daughters first dance show on stage. When I was zooming in I noticed the images were blurry. In a panic I tried to set it to AUTO. With my old X10 I could just switch onto auto if I didn't want to think, it did excellent in low light. It doesn't seem there is the equivalent on the XT-1?
Click to expand...
Must admit find the auto switch handy on the XT20 at times espically if you want to hand it to someone to get a picture.
Buy i always thought you could get the XT1 to do it. its more long winded but if you set the program to P, aperture on the lens to A, Shutter speed to A, iso to auto and focusing to wide i have always thought it would be in auto mode.
Not as easy as the T10 buy its a work around.
 
In what scenario would you pick bracketing over dynamic range?

In the case of the image being discussed - wouldn't upping the dynamic range help balance out the differences in dark and light areas of the scene?

EDIT - saying that - I understood bracketing as a process, and it has a number of different settings e.g. exposure, shutter speed etc. One way of increasing the dynamic range of a shot is to bracket three different exposures. Have never used it on the XT-1 though, so could be talking rubbish in the context of this thread.
 
Last edited:
yamahatdm900 said:
its more long winded but if you set the program to P, aperture on the lens to A, Shutter speed to A, iso to auto and focusing to wide i have always thought it would be in auto mode.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I don't see a setting in the menus, or on the dials, to set program to P?
 
Last edited:
Ian W said:
I find I can only really get away with bracketing from a tripod. Worth using if you have one [emoji106]
Click to expand...

Have plenty of tripods, but the camera was sitting on the ground, can't get much more stable than that !! ;)
 
davidy233 said:
Page 24 of the manual - http://www.fujifilm.com/support/digital_cameras/manuals/pdf/index/x/fujifilm_xt1_manual_en.pdf
Click to expand...
Thanks. I misplaced my little paper manual a long time ago. Useful reading through it again. Interesting to see my function buttons don't work like the manual suggest. e.g. pressing the F1 button, whatever drive mode I am in, brings up metering.

I was also excited to see a macro mode in the manual. I've never found that in the camera. I have followed instructions - it just isn't there though. Do I need a certain type of lens attached (e.g. 60mm) for that option to appear in the menu? I also note that the alternative way also mentioned in the manual. However pressing the up arrow above the menu button, does not activate a macro mode.
 
Last edited:
Jelster said:
You can just set everything to "Auto" (aperture, shutter speed, ISO) and everything is then left up to the camera!
Click to expand...
Those settings were actually my last ditch attempt at my daughters play. It still failed to generate sharp images, where auto mode on other less sophisticated cameras has saved me in the past.

As you guys have mentioned - I need to put in some more work to this camera, and just accept that there is no comparative AUTO mode to those on the X10 or the XT10.

It would seem in the scenario of a stage play with low lights, Shutter priority mode (with aperture and ISO set to auto) might be the answer to capture sharp images of moving elements. Using manual focus with those settings will probably help out as well.
 
Last edited:
souldeep said:
In what scenario would you pick bracketing over dynamic range?

In the case of the image being discussed - wouldn't upping the dynamic range help balance out the differences in dark and light areas of the scene?

EDIT - saying that - I understood bracketing as a process, and it has a number of different settings e.g. exposure, shutter speed etc. One way of increasing the dynamic range of a shot is to bracket three different exposures. Have never used it on the XT-1 though, so could be talking rubbish in the context of this thread.
Click to expand...


It does not increase the dynamic range of the image. It lets you capture a greater range than single shot can, as additional shots can capture those parts clipped in the highlights and shadows.
In the scene that @Jelster took there was no clipping at either end. so the procedure achieved nothing at all.

Of course when you capture that wider range on multiple shots, and fuse them, you then have to compress them in order to display them. in most cases it is the display or print that is the limiting factor.
Almost inevitably the captured image will be both compressed and duller. You have to apply other PP techniques to restore brightness and contrast.
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
It does not increase the dynamic range of the image. It lets you capture a greater range than single shot can, as additional shots can capture those parts clipped in the highlights and shadows.
In the scene that you took there was no clipping at either end. so the procedure achieved nothing at all.

Of course when you capture that wider range on multiple shots, and fuse them, you then have to compress them in order to display them. in most cases it is the display or print that is the limiting factor.
Almost inevitably the captured image will be both compressed and duller. You have to apply other PP techniques to restore brightness and contrast.
Click to expand...
Hello Terry - I remember you well from the days of the X10 thread!

To clarify one point - that wasn't my image. It was posted by a different member (Steve).
 
souldeep said:
Hello Terry - I remember you well from the days of the X10 thread!

To clarify one point - that wasn't my image. It was posted by a different member (Steve).
Click to expand...
Thanks I have corrected the post.
 
Jelster said:
7 shots on a moving river probably isn't the best idea is it?... The time between shot 1 & 7 was a couple of seconds - more than enough time for stuff to move.
Click to expand...

I think I may have misunderstood the purpose of your experiment. I read your "more than enough time for stuff to move" meaning you wanted to merge shots.

Sorry if I missed this - but what option (e.g. exposure, film simulation etc) were you selecting to bracket 7 shots of this scene?

What was the purpose of the bracketing? For example did you intend to merge the bracketed shots together (e.g. to create a HDR from a number of different dynamic range shots)?
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
It does not increase the dynamic range of the image. It lets you capture a greater range than single shot can, as additional shots can capture those parts clipped in the highlights and shadows.
In the scene that @Jelster took there was no clipping at either end. so the procedure achieved nothing at all.

Of course when you capture that wider range on multiple shots, and fuse them, you then have to compress them in order to display them. in most cases it is the display or print that is the limiting factor.
Almost inevitably the captured image will be both compressed and duller. You have to apply other PP techniques to restore brightness and contrast.
Click to expand...

Just to confirm, There was clipping, but by reducing highlights, and raising shadows, I brought it all back within limits. I then used the white & black sliders to expand the dynamic range. It's a method I've used before but never on bracketed image.

I shot 7 frames, but only used 6 of them, as one was just almost all white.

Like I said, it was not the right time & place to use the method, I need to think about when I do it again....
 
Ian W said:
I find I can only really get away with bracketing from a tripod. Worth using if you have one [emoji106]
Click to expand...
That's not my experience. Of course, if you're looking for a sharper shot, to the extent of using focus stacking, I would always use a tripod for that if possible.

But for combining exposures, the auto align functions generally cope just fine with (e.g.) three handheld exposures. You might lose a little bit of picture at the very edges, but that's all, most of the time.

Of course, it depends exactly how you're doing it. But for HDR in LR or hand blending in PS, there won't usually be a problem.

If the subject is moving, it gets more complicated, but of course a tripod won't help with that anyway.
 
dave.hallett said:
That's not my experience. Of course, if you're looking for a sharper shot, to the extent of using focus stacking, I would always use a tripod for that if possible.

But for combining exposures, the auto align functions generally cope just fine with (e.g.) three handheld exposures. You might lose a little bit of picture at the very edges, but that's all, most of the time.

Of course, it depends exactly how you're doing it. But for HDR in LR or hand blending in PS, there won't usually be a problem.

If the subject is moving, it gets more complicated, but of course a tripod won't help with that anyway.
Click to expand...
Depends on shutter speed also naturally, but for landscapes when at least one of the shots will be over exposed, that's where the hand held issue comes in.

I'm sure LR does a sterling job of aligning them though [emoji106]
 
Hehe - the proportions are spot on. You could superimpose the X from your avatar and it would match. Subconscious marketing perhaps - Fuji indoctrination in action :LOL:
 
I'm the first one to admit that my Landscape type photography leaves a bit to be desired, probably because I've very little interest in this type of photography, but I quite like this snap.

Just a simple Landscape/Seascape tourist type Fujigraph taken at Lands End Cornwall UK.

X-T1, 18-55mm Lens, 1/250th @ F8, ISO-200, Handheld.
Cornwall (5)-03205 by G.K.Jnr., on Flickr

:ty: for looking., (y):fuji:

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