The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

There's actually no good reason NOT to shoot the moon handheld, because of it's light, you can use pretty fast shutter speeds. Though I did shoot it at 1/60 earlier, only because I was testing the OIS
 
Cagey75 said:
There's actually no good reason NOT to shoot the moon handheld, because of it's light, you can use pretty fast shutter speeds. Though I did shoot it at 1/60 earlier, only because I was testing the OIS
Click to expand...
Yup, the sunny 16 rule for daytime works pretty well as moony 11 for moon shots!
 
dave.hallett said:
I agree. But I think we're talking about the XC16-50 here, a very different beast :)
Click to expand...

It was more in response to snerkler's post where he mentioned the 16-55 2.8 ;)

The 16-50 XC is what I would call the true 'kit lens' - there's nothing wrong with it, I've seen some very nice images shot using it. But it's slow, not an ideal lens for indoors for example, without having to use flash.
 
Cagey75 said:
It was more in response to snerkler's post where he mentioned the 16-55 2.8 ;)

The 16-50 XC is what I would call the true 'kit lens' - there's nothing wrong with it, I've seen some very nice images shot using it. But it's slow, not an ideal lens for indoors for example, without having to use flash.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I wasn't comparing the 16-55mm to the others, just suggesting why they didn't make the 18-55mm 16mm at the wide end ;)

My comment to Andy about the 16-50mm wasn't that I was suggesting the 16-50mm is a bad lens, but having seen Andy's ventures from the 5D3 to D750 to A7II, listening to his likes and dislikes, I just don't think that the 16-50mm would be for him. IQ is very good, but not quite as good as the 18-55mm, but it does feel pretty cheap and not the nicest lens to use imo. Whilst some will argue that it's IQ that matters, to me (and I know to Andy) it's about the whole experience, and if something feels cheap it's not as much joy to use and you lose your mojo with it.
 
Nuzik said:
I live in Swindon be great full you get to take decent photos of where you live. I struggle having exciting scenery either landscape or town
Click to expand...

You poor thing! I lived in Blunsdon for a few years when I worked at David Lloyd. I never warmed to Swindon itself, made some really good friends there though.

Head out to Cirencester or Cerney Lakes, or down towards Marlborough and you'll start to find some good places to shoot though :)

*EDIT - sorry, just saw you don't drive :( Bus to Ciren or Cheltenham it is then :)
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Yeah, I wasn't comparing the 16-55mm to the others, just suggesting why they didn't make the 18-55mm 16mm at the wide end ;)

My comment to Andy about the 16-50mm wasn't that I was suggesting the 16-50mm is a bad lens, but having seen Andy's ventures from the 5D3 to D750 to A7II, listening to his likes and dislikes, I just don't think that the 16-50mm would be for him. IQ is very good, but not quite as good as the 18-55mm, but it does feel pretty cheap and not the nicest lens to use imo. Whilst some will argue that it's IQ that matters, to me (and I know to Andy) it's about the whole experience, and if something feels cheap it's not as much joy to use and you lose your mojo with it.
Click to expand...


Yeah I know what you meant, was just clarifying for dave ;)

I personally wouldn't use the 16-50, it's just too slow. I like to shoot a lot indoors with the kids [and cats!] and I can't see me using that comfortably without flash - which is ok, I do shoot with off cam flash at times. But I much prefer ambient/natural light. The 16-50 variable is what i'd call a daytime lens.
 
I'm shooting birds through the window here atm, bit tricky when you got 2 cats on the prowl, but I left out some bread overnight and they're starting to circle. I'm trying out various settings, but it's hard not to get some glare or misting from the window [I even cleaned it last night!] - Might be a good time to test the demisting in the new Lightroom! Started the trial on it to see how it goes.

What would be an ideal shutter speed for birds? not that I will capture any in flight, but even just bouncing about on the garden table they can be buggers to keep up with
 
Hi folks....

anybody tried both he Fuji 56mm f1.2 R and the 56mm f1.2 R APD?
Is the APD worth the cost difference, advantages / disadvantages?
I am deciding on my lens collection for the XT-2 :D

Cheers,

Riz
 
Well, that was a disappointing morning, at least I've learned trying to shoot through a glared window isn't going to achieve best results. Also that I had the garden table too far away. These are not only massive crops, but they're noisey because of the PP they required, inc messing about with the new Dehaze function. it works, really works, but introduces a lot of noise for shots like this.

_DSF9278 by Enticing Imagery, on Flickr

_DSF9317 by Enticing Imagery, on Flickr
 
Cagey75 said:
I would just get the standard one, I think the APD version is a gimmick, here's a very good direct comparison though: http://www.fujivsfuji.com/56mm-f1pt2-vs-apd/

Ninja'd by Mat0tam :D

It is a good comparison though, I think the AF hunting in low light would turn me off, let alone the price difference.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. Stick with the standard version. I played with the two and compared their images before going for the standard version. Put the difference in value towards another lens
 
@Pick really want to like the second. Not convinced by the sky though.
 
trevorbray said:
@Pick really want to like the second. Not convinced by the sky though.
Click to expand...

I had that colour sky from my X-T1 on some photos I took on a day out to Ilkley Moor, didn't look right at all

Just the other day I saw exactly the same colour with my eyes, very weird and can only assume it's accurate, still looks off though
 
Pick said:
Yes I was using Velvia
Click to expand...
Velvia can make blues more aqua, but not that extreme. Must have been a weird sky. What's even weirder is that the reflection of the sky is a different blue to the sky itself. Have you added a grad filter of brush to the sky?
 
snerkler said:
Velvia can make blues more aqua, but not that extreme. Must have been a weird sky. What's even weirder is that the reflection of the sky is a different blue to the sky itself. Have you added a grad filter of brush to the sky?
Click to expand...

That what I though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top