The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

dave.hallett said:
That's interesting, given that you seem to mostly shoot wide angle in the outdoors. Why not? I'd better ask before I buy it :)
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with the lens, its a lovely lens I seem to be shooting with the 16-55 a lot more these days.
Saying that I did sell a 10-24 only to buy another a couple of months later, the times I do love it is when shooting big foregrounds, 2 srecent shots that spring to mind are a Luss pier shot and a Dunstabrugh castle sunrise one. And its very handy when shooting interiors especially with the IS.
My normal lens line up I carry about for landscapes is the 10-24, 16-55 and a 55-200
 
dave.hallett said:
That's interesting, given that you seem to mostly shoot wide angle in the outdoors. Why not? I'd better ask before I buy it :)
Click to expand...

Also thinking about it David if I had the 18-55 instead of the 16-55 I would use the 10-24 a lot more I seem to use the 16mm end quite a lot.

I was going to say you can have a mine for a day to try but seem to recall you hired one a few weeks back?
 
yamahatdm900 said:
Also thinking about it David if I had the 18-55 instead of the 16-55 I would use the 10-24 a lot more I seem to use the 16mm end quite a lot.

I was going to say you can have a mine for a day to try but seem to recall you hired one a few weeks back?
Click to expand...

Thanks, very kind, but I did indeed hire one: almost all my Pembrokeshire images were taken with it.

I see your point about the 16-18mm range. Looking at my 20ish favourite shots from the trip taken with that lens, about 5 were taken at 24mm, another 5 between 16 and 18, 5 more somewhere around 14-15mm and another 5 mostly 10-12, generally nearer 12.

So whereas I could only have substituted the 18-55 for about a quarter of those shots, you could have taken fully half of them with the 16-55. Fair shout.

I could probably manage fairly well if I sold the 12mm and bought a 14mm, based on those figures, but all that lens changing would be a pain, and it's nice to have a wider option every now and then.
 
OK, not too many technical things get me scratching my head, but this puzzle is at the moment!!

I had a client on a recent workshop shooting 9 shot bracketed exposures with an X-T2 and 10-24 (tripod mounted), he believes that he had IS switched off.

On some of the image sequences, some of the images are at a different focal length - as reported by Lightroom - this stops them being merged by Lightroom. I have checked the images and they are indeed different, image edges move slightly, so I think the LR is reporting correctly. (He has sent me two sequences, on the first the first image is at 13.2mm and the rest at 12.6mm, on the second sequence all images are at 16.6mm and the 2nd/4th/6th images at 17.4mm). The average exposure duration was quite long - 14 seconds on first sequence and 3.5 seconds on second sequence)

I normally use primes (no-IS). Could IS being inadvertently on potentially cause this issue, or is there some other kind of equipment issue. If IS is not at fault, then I would suggest that the lens is sent to Fuji to be checked out.

Any ideas?
 
Mr Perceptive said:
OK, not too many technical things get me scratching my head, but this puzzle is at the moment!!

I had a client on a recent workshop shooting 9 shot bracketed exposures with an X-T2 and 10-24 (tripod mounted), he believes that he had IS switched off.

On some of the image sequences, some of the images are at a different focal length - as reported by Lightroom - this stops them being merged by Lightroom. I have checked the images and they are indeed different, image edges move slightly, so I think the LR is reporting correctly. (He has sent me two sequences, on the first the first image is at 13.2mm and the rest at 12.6mm, on the second sequence all images are at 16.6mm and the 2nd/4th/6th images at 17.4mm). The average exposure duration was quite long - 14 seconds on first sequence and 3.5 seconds on second sequence)

I normally use primes (no-IS). Could IS being inadvertently on potentially cause this issue, or is there some other kind of equipment issue. If IS is not at fault, then I would suggest that the lens is sent to Fuji to be checked out.

Any ideas?
Click to expand...
It couldn't simply be lens creep with it being a zoom? Not something I've experienced on my 10-24mm mind you regardless of shooting angle.
 
Ian W said:
It couldn't simply be lens creep with it being a zoom? Not something I've experienced on my 10-24mm mind you regardless of shooting angle.
Click to expand...

I could understand that for the first sequence, but for the second sequence it went 16.6 - 17.4 - 16.6 - 17.4 - 16.6 - 17.4 - 16.6 - 16.6 - 16.6 and images 2 - 3 -4 where all short exposures and when it was stable last 3 images, they were the really long exposures!
 
I suppose it's possible vibration from the OIS caused it, I've not had anything similar happen with mine though, that also seems a large jump for vibration.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
I could understand that for the first sequence, but for the second sequence it went 16.6 - 17.4 - 16.6 - 17.4 - 16.6 - 17.4 - 16.6 - 16.6 - 16.6 and images 2 - 3 -4 where all short exposures and when it was stable last 3 images, they were the really long exposures!
Click to expand...
Hmmm, true. I don't suppose automatic vs manual focus should matter either.
 
Do you guys turn off long exposure noise reduction in the setting menus? Thinking this may blur out stars or lose some detail when doing long exposures.
 
Have you tried superimposing the images to see if the magnification has really changed, and not just the position of the frame.

It is possible that the lens is reporting the focal length setting in the exif data incorrectly, which is not all that unusual.

I have had cameras give variable reporting of the distance (focus) setting, and when tested Fuji said it was within tolerance, so I suppose the same could be true of focal length reporting.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Have you tried superimposing the images to see if the magnification has really changed, and not just the position of the frame.

It is possible that the lens is reporting the focal length setting in the exif data incorrectly, which is not all that unusual.

I have had cameras give variable reporting of the distance (focus) setting, and when tested Fuji said it was within tolerance, so I suppose the same could be true of focal length reporting.
Click to expand...

The images do have a different FOV which does correspond to the Exif, so it's not a reporting issue

Another group has suggested focus breathing, but I don't know if an X-T2 would attempt to reacquainted focus on each image in a bracketed sequence or if it just uses the focus from the first image

I've tried replicating it with my only zoom 18-55 and deliberately moving the camera about so it couldn't acquire focus on some shots on the sequence but all shots are reported at same focal length, maybe the 18-55 doesn't breathe but the 10-24 does????
 
Mr Perceptive said:
The images do have a different FOV which does correspond to the Exif, so it's not a reporting issue

Another group has suggested focus breathing, but I don't know if an X-T2 would attempt to reacquainted focus on each image in a bracketed sequence or if it just uses the focus from the first image

I've tried replicating it with my only zoom 18-55 and deliberately moving the camera about so it couldn't acquire focus on some shots on the sequence but all shots are reported at same focal length, maybe the 18-55 doesn't breathe but the 10-24 does????
Click to expand...
Hence my question about focusing earlier. Whether it does or does not, I'll always focus manually when bracketing or doing long exposures.

I'm still dubious about whether this is the actual cause, but it's a possibility I guess.
 
I'll stick mine on later and give it a try. I have 2 bodies so I can try with both, but they won't be long exposures, I don't have the time unfortunately
 
Mr Perceptive said:
OK, not too many technical things get me scratching my head, but this puzzle is at the moment!!

I had a client on a recent workshop shooting 9 shot bracketed exposures with an X-T2 and 10-24 (tripod mounted), he believes that he had IS switched off.

On some of the image sequences, some of the images are at a different focal length - as reported by Lightroom - this stops them being merged by Lightroom. I have checked the images and they are indeed different, image edges move slightly, so I think the LR is reporting correctly. (He has sent me two sequences, on the first the first image is at 13.2mm and the rest at 12.6mm, on the second sequence all images are at 16.6mm and the 2nd/4th/6th images at 17.4mm). The average exposure duration was quite long - 14 seconds on first sequence and 3.5 seconds on second sequence)

I normally use primes (no-IS). Could IS being inadvertently on potentially cause this issue, or is there some other kind of equipment issue. If IS is not at fault, then I would suggest that the lens is sent to Fuji to be checked out.

Any ideas?
Click to expand...


I had that on my first 10-24 ( I sold one and missed so brought another) took me a while to work why LR couldn't merge them funny enough PS would merge the same shots.
It only happened on the odd occasion and until I read your post I forgot all about it. I just merged any HDR in PS in the end.
The second copy so far seems ok.
 
ashtennisguru said:
Gradually working my way through the images from my marathon London session (well actually half-marathon as I only walked 13 miles)...
Click to expand...

Really like this. I bet if you stepped a few paces to the left to line up the corners of the two buildings, something else comes into the frame... :eek:
 
yamahatdm900 said:
I had that on my first 10-24 ( I sold one and missed so brought another) took me a while to work why LR couldn't merge them funny enough PS would merge the same shots.
It only happened on the odd occasion and until I read your post I forgot all about it. I just merged any HDR in PS in the end.
The second copy so far seems ok.
Click to expand...
Just to add a data point, nearly all the shots I took on my Pembrokeshire trip were 3-shot bracketed exposures, due to conditions, and there were about 2000 exposures in total. I haven't looked exhaustively, but I can't find a single set that exhibits this phenomenon. I suspect that it's a copy problem, and if he can reproduce it, he should get in touch with Fuji. Even if it does focus breathe, I can't see why it should be reacquiring focus during a sequence. That's just asking for problems.

Edit: Having said that, I leave my lenses set to MF and use the back button for focusing. Other setups may get different results, I guess.
 
Last edited:
yamahatdm900 said:
I had that on my first 10-24 ( I sold one and missed so brought another) took me a while to work why LR couldn't merge them funny enough PS would merge the same shots.
It only happened on the odd occasion and until I read your post I forgot all about it. I just merged any HDR in PS in the end.
The second copy so far seems ok.
Click to expand...

I'll try a PS merge, thanks, also had this response on another Fuji Group

On Oct 5th there was a firmware update for the 10-24mm f4 lens

“The firmware update Ver.1.12 from Ver.1.11 incorporates the following issue:

1.The phenomenon is fixed that in rare cases, a focal length could be displayed wrongly and/or shaking could be seen in a peripheral part of images even if a focal length and a focus are fixed.”
 
Mr Perceptive said:
I'll try a PS merge, thanks, also had this response on another Fuji Group

On Oct 5th there was a firmware update for the 10-24mm f4 lens

“The firmware update Ver.1.12 from Ver.1.11 incorporates the following issue:

1.The phenomenon is fixed that in rare cases, a focal length could be displayed wrongly and/or shaking could be seen in a peripheral part of images even if a focal length and a focus are fixed.”
Click to expand...
That would make sense with my shots, just had a look at them and the one ive found was a 5 bracket shot, base exposure of .5 sec with is off. Focal length is given at 12.6 for 4 of them and one at 13.2.
Looking at the 13.2 and a 12.6 i cant see any difference between shots. So would make sense in this case if focal length was just recorded wrong.
 
yamahatdm900 said:
Thats really nice Ash well worth the walk.
Click to expand...

Thanks mate, appreciate it - legs were killing me for 2 days!

bcjames said:
That's really great. Perhaps the structure centre bottom of the frame is a bit in the way, but I find the image very captivating.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree - I'd had considered cloning it out, if I get a bit of time I'll give it a go and see how it comes out.

Peter123 said:
Some great images there Ash. Did you use a tripod?
Click to expand...

Thanks Peter, no these are all handheld - travelled as light as possible!

Jelster said:
Really like this. I bet if you stepped a few paces to the left to line up the corners of the two buildings, something else comes into the frame... :eek:
Click to expand...

Cheers buddy. Yeah, I shot from a few different lamp-posts and at different angles - unfortunately there were a lot of people milling around and sitting on the wall having a smoke after work so I couldn't get many clean shots - will deffo re-visit the spot though next time i'm back.

ianmarsh said:
That's lovely. I've tried to get that same composition a few times without success. I'm on a phone now so cannot easily tell but what lens did you use for this?
Click to expand...

Thanks Ian - it's the 18-55mm - the only lens I own at the moment, I keep thinking about adding more lenses to the bag, but to be honest I've not found a situation (for the things I generally shoot) that it couldn't handle perfectly well, so for now I'm sticking with it.
 
G.K.Jnr. said:
Very nice Fujigraph Sir, with some good detail in the architecture and some in the snow.(y)

George.
Click to expand...
Thanks George! This is pretty much my default shot at the Camera when I'm not otherwise inspired, but it's unusual to have the benefit of snow. As a composition it has two big advantages - (i) it fits into the 18-55mm field of view quite easily, and (ii) to take it, you stand up against the railings, meaning that all the tourists are back behind you, trying to get the entire building into frame :)
 
Three long exposures from the X-T20 and the 18-55 - conditions were great for LE's this afternoon and then it also got really foggy too which was even better - shame it started to get dark else I could have wandered along the coast for another hour or two..

I will try something other than long exposures in 2018 !

Also, is there any way to process the RAW's from the X-T20 on a Mac ?

Untitled by Gary Smith, on Flickr

Untitled by Gary Smith, on Flickr

ApexX by Gary Smith, on Flickr
 
ashtennisguru said:
Very smooth images there Gary!

Unless I'm misunderstanding your question, there's a programme called Lightroom which is fairly popular for that sort of thing :)
Click to expand...
I think that High Sierra recognises all Fuji raw files.
 
ashtennisguru said:
Very smooth images there Gary!

Unless I'm misunderstanding your question, there's a programme called Lightroom which is fairly popular for that sort of thing :)
Click to expand...

Cheers - I think I have vaguely heard of Lightroom :ROFLMAO: but currently use Aperture. As far as I can tell, macOS High Sierra doesn't support the RAW's from the X-T20 so I am stuck processing the JPG's right now. Can Lightroom handle a RAW format that the OS doesn't support ?
 
GaryS70 said:
Cheers - I think I have vaguely heard of Lightroom :ROFLMAO: but currently use Aperture. As far as I can tell, macOS High Sierra doesn't support the RAW's from the X-T20 so I am stuck processing the JPG's right now. Can Lightroom handle a RAW format that the OS doesn't support ?
Click to expand...

High Sierra will handle uncompressed RAW from xt20. Might be a workaround using Photos and external editor, Photoshop perhaps.
 
trevorbray said:
High Sierra will handle uncompressed RAW from xt20. Might be a workaround using Photos and external editor, Photoshop perhaps.
Click to expand...

Thanks - just saw the same and checked - I am using lossless compressed at the moment so that explains why they weren't working for me. Will switch to uncompressed next time to see how I get on. That said, the JPG's are pretty decent anyway !
 
IMG_5425.jpg
“Don’t worry, I’ve got your back”

First time out with the 10-24. The day was dull so whilst Street photography isn’t what automatically springs to mind with this lens it proved up to the task
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top