The Fabulous Fuji X owners thread

How many XT owners have a an X100 of some description as well?

I had an X100 for years. I loved it but found it's pace frustrating. But it was a great companion to a heavy Nikon DSLR and had a very distinct purpose.

When my DSLR took a tumble last year, I swapped the X100 for an X100T while the insurance side of things was being sorted. I like the X100T, controls and responsiveness are much better than X100 but I've now had an X-T2 for about 6 weeks (replaced my dead DSLR) and the X100T isn't getting a look in. I guess this is partly because I'm in the honeymoon period with my X-T2, but I think it's also that the controls are similar enough that cameras feel familiar but actually they don't work quite the same way and it's really slowing me down when I pick up the X100T. It's not as intuitive as it once was.

So I'm pondering letting it go and picking up a cheap 27mm or 18mm prime for really travelling light with X-T2. Downsides that I can see, is that it still wouldn't be as portable as the X100t, the X100t is sexy! and the focal length isn't 23mm. I love 35mm equivalent and do have the 23mm 1.4. Wish they did a pancake version. The 23mm f/2 is too pointy to make it worthwhile changing for size alone. Or maybe I'll just stick the 35mm f/2 on if I just want to travel light. Don't know, but I'm very aware that the X100t is starting to become a pretty ornament.

Anybody else faced this dilemma? Think I'd regret letting the X100t go?
 
gad-westy said:
How many XT owners have a an X100 of some description as well?

I had an X100 for years. I loved it but found it's pace frustrating. But it was a great companion to a heavy Nikon DSLR and had a very distinct purpose.

When my DSLR took a tumble last year, I swapped the X100 for an X100T while the insurance side of things was being sorted. I like the X100T, controls and responsiveness are much better than X100 but I've now had an X-T2 for about 6 weeks (replaced my dead DSLR) and the X100T isn't getting a look in. I guess this is partly because I'm in the honeymoon period with my X-T2, but I think it's also that the controls are similar enough that cameras feel familiar but actually they don't work quite the same way and it's really slowing me down when I pick up the X100T. It's not as intuitive as it once was.

So I'm pondering letting it go and picking up a cheap 27mm or 18mm prime for really travelling light with X-T2. Downsides that I can see, is that it still wouldn't be as portable as the X100t, the X100t is sexy! and the focal length isn't 23mm. I love 35mm equivalent and do have the 23mm 1.4. Wish they did a pancake version. The 23mm f/2 is too pointy to make it worthwhile changing for size alone. Or maybe I'll just stick the 35mm f/2 on if I just want to travel light. Don't know, but I'm very aware that the X100t is starting to become a pretty ornament.

Anybody else faced this dilemma? Think I'd regret letting the X100t go?
Click to expand...
I have an X-T2 and an X100F. The T2 is hardly used at the moment - though this might change come spring. I took only the X100F plus WCL to HK and Australia for all of November and didn't miss the T2 one little bit. If I had to let one go, it would be the T2. Incidentally, I find the F to have almost the exact same controls as the X-Pro2 I once owned. I did have all three. I had to lose either the T2 or the Pro2. I think I chose the wrong one!
 
Hi Graham

I have both - acquired the different way round to you so the X100F is the new purchase.

I find I still use both but they are different tools for different jobs. If I want to go wide or long then the XT2 comes into it's own. I guess you could say when there's some foresight and planning into what I'm going to be doing!

I use the X100 when out and about or in 'down the pub' situations i.e. when there's more spontaneity and I'm doing stuff on the fly.

My dilemma is whether to keep my 23 f1.4. It's been my most used lens but with using the X100 for the situations I normally used it for, it's getting underused now.

No right answer I guess. I've just been fortunate to be able to keep both.

Dave
 
Stephen L said:
I have an X-T2 and an X100F. The T2 is hardly used at the moment - though this might change come spring. I took only the X100F plus WCL to HK and Australia for all of November and didn't miss the T2 one little bit. If I had to let one go, it would be the T2. Incidentally, I find the F to have almost the exact same controls as the X-Pro2 I once owned. I did have all three. I had to lose either the T2 or the Pro2. I think I chose the wrong one!
Click to expand...

Don't mention the X100f!

Jokes aside, thanks Stephen, the X-T2 really suits my typical usage which is basically predominantly family stuff, fast moving kids, motorsport or landscape. The X100's can do a bit of this stuff too so always been happy to travel with one but right now, if I were going just about anywhere, I'd be taking the X-T2 and one or two lenses. Even took it hiking recently when in the past I'd have always taken an X100. Partly because the X-T2 is currently the new kid on the block but partly because it too is small enough.
 
Sniffer said:
Hi Graham

I have both - acquired the different way round to you so the X100F is the new purchase.

I find I still use both but they are different tools for different jobs. If I want to go wide or long then the XT2 comes into it's own. I guess you could say when there's some foresight and planning into what I'm going to be doing!

I use the X100 when out and about or in 'down the pub' situations i.e. when there's more spontaneity and I'm doing stuff on the fly.

My dilemma is whether to keep my 23 f1.4. It's been my most used lens but with using the X100 for the situations I normally used it for, it's getting underused now.

No right answer I guess. I've just been fortunate to be able to keep both.

Dave
Click to expand...

Cheers. There's that X100f word again :)

I can imagine the X100f being less frustrating if you have an X-T2 as the joystick and other controls carry over quite well between the two. At the moment I'm reaching for a joystick that isn't there on the X100t. I'm just finding it all less intuitive than I used to. I suspect I'd miss it if I sold it but that doesn't mean I shouldn't do so.
 
gad-westy said:
I can imagine the X100f being less frustrating if you have an X-T2 as the joystick and other controls carry over quite well between the two
Click to expand...
You're right. I have mine set up in a very similar way so don't find it tricky to switch back and forth. There are still some idiosyncrasies that leave me scratching my head when trying to change something on one camera in a way that can't be done on the other but that's usually me just being dim!
 
~
Sniffer said:
You're right. I have mine set up in a very similar way so don't find it tricky to switch back and forth. There are still some idiosyncrasies that leave me scratching my head when trying to change something on one camera in a way that can't be done on the other but that's usually me just being dim!
Click to expand...

I think it's just a muscle memory thing rather than being dim. Or I'll keep telling myself that. The trouble is that many of the controls are the same, aperture, and shutter speed, Q menu etc. So it all feels instantly familiar until you try to change ISO or af point or something. I found it much easier when I had an X100 and DSLR as they were so completely different, I felt quite comfortable switching from one to another. Odd as that sounds.
 
I have an XT1 and an X100F. I do love the X100 series and have now had six of them. However, if you're going to fit the X100 with a WCL to get 19mm or a TCL to get 33mm then you'd be better off IMHO with an 18-55 zoom on an XT2 There is no saving in weight or size. Currently, I am agonizing over whether to sell the X100F and XT1 and just make do with an XT2 and the zooms. However, the X100F in its standard form is a joy to use.
 
Rosedalelad said:
I have an XT1 and an X100F. I do love the X100 series and have now had six of them. However, if you're going to fit the X100 with a WCL to get 19mm or a TCL to get 33mm then you'd be better off IMHO with an 18-55 zoom on an XT2 There is no saving in weight or size. Currently, I am agonizing over whether to sell the X100F and XT1 and just make do with an XT2 and the zooms. However, the X100F in its standard form is a joy to use.
Click to expand...
I know what you're saying Andrew. In fact, I just weighed my X-T2 plus 18-55 (alone), and my PD bag with X100F, WCL, TCL, spare batteries, Manfrotto table-top tripod, and poo bags, and the latter came out almost exactly 1Kg heavier, thus proving your point. BUT to me, less is more. I would argue that for most of my purposes having a fixed-length body (X100F) is more versatile because it challenges me to more carefully consider composition and viewpoint. Plus, the X-T2 is just a camera. A very, very capable camera it's true, but just an optical instrument to take photos. For me photography is more than that. I can inter-act more with the X100F than my T2 because I feel it has soul. Call me daft, but for me photography is more than just the end result; it's the whole experience of taking a photo.
 
Stephen L said:
I know what you're saying Andrew. In fact, I just weighed my X-T2 plus 18-55 (alone), and my PD bag with X100F, WCL, TCL, spare batteries, Manfrotto table-top tripod, and poo bags, and the latter came out almost exactly 1Kg heavier, thus proving your point. BUT to me, less is more. I would argue that for most of my purposes having a fixed-length body (X100F) is more versatile because it challenges me to more carefully consider composition and viewpoint. Plus, the X-T2 is just a camera. A very, very capable camera it's true, but just an optical instrument to take photos. For me photography is more than that. I can inter-act more with the X100F than my T2 because I feel it has soul. Call me daft, but for me photography is more than just the end result; it's the whole experience of taking a photo.
Click to expand...

You summarise quite well why I'm concerned I'd regret selling my X100t.

That said, unlike yourself, I'm not finding that is the one I'm reaching for if I'm heading out. Some of my photography just doesn't suit an X100 which mean if I have one, it's always going to be a second camera. It's whether I can continue to justify that when I have an X-T2 which, with the right lens, can do a very good impression of 'compact' camera itself whilst also doing all of the other stuff well too. Admittedly, as you say, without quite the same charisma.
 
Stephen L said:
I know what you're saying Andrew. In fact, I just weighed my X-T2 plus 18-55 (alone), and my PD bag with X100F, WCL, TCL, spare batteries, Manfrotto table-top tripod, and poo bags, and the latter came out almost exactly 1Kg heavier, thus proving your point. BUT to me, less is more. I would argue that for most of my purposes having a fixed-length body (X100F) is more versatile because it challenges me to more carefully consider composition and viewpoint. Plus, the X-T2 is just a camera. A very, very capable camera it's true, but just an optical instrument to take photos. For me photography is more than that. I can inter-act more with the X100F than my T2 because I feel it has soul. Call me daft, but for me photography is more than just the end result; it's the whole experience of taking a photo.
Click to expand...

gad-westy said:
You summarise quite well why I'm concerned I'd regret selling my X100t.

That said, unlike yourself, I'm not finding that is the one I'm reaching for if I'm heading out. Some of my photography just doesn't suit an X100 which mean if I have one, it's always going to be a second camera. It's whether I can continue to justify that when I have an X-T2 which, with the right lens, can do a very good impression of 'compact' camera itself whilst also doing all of the other stuff well too. Admittedly, as you say, without quite the same charisma.
Click to expand...

If I'm going on a dedicated photography day, then I'll take the X-T2, unless its a city visit. If I'm going for a day out with friends/family, then I'll take the X100F. IMO no lens options on an X-T2 make it an X100F, there is just something so nice about the X100 style package (and the leaf shutter is so quiet). I went to Rome on a City Break last year and like Stephen and his Australia trip, I just took X100F + converters, didn't miss the X-T2 at all.

An X100 style camera over your shoulder, spare battery and WCL in pocket = happy days
 
Stephen L said:
I know what you're saying Andrew. In fact, I just weighed my X-T2 plus 18-55 (alone), and my PD bag with X100F, WCL, TCL, spare batteries, Manfrotto table-top tripod, and poo bags, and the latter came out almost exactly 1Kg heavier, thus proving your point. BUT to me, less is more. I would argue that for most of my purposes having a fixed-length body (X100F) is more versatile because it challenges me to more carefully consider composition and viewpoint. Plus, the X-T2 is just a camera. A very, very capable camera it's true, but just an optical instrument to take photos. For me photography is more than that. I can inter-act more with the X100F than my T2 because I feel it has soul. Call me daft, but for me photography is more than just the end result; it's the whole experience of taking a photo.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you - as I said, the X100F in its standard form is a joy to use. That's why I'm agonizing :-)
 
Oops - just remembered we’re in the XT thread! Maybe if we just tiptoe out ...
 
Hi all, I'm having a flash issue with my XT1 that I was hoping I could get some help with. I have bought a Godox TT685F to pair with my XT1's and when the camera is in Single mode the flash fires perfectly (including HSS). However, when I switch to a CL or CH mode, the flash fires twice and I can't seem to understand why? The flash is definitely in Manual and I have red-eye reduction and everything else turned off. It's a bit annoying as it's draining the battery and reduces the number of continuous bursts I can get out.

Any ideas from anyone as to what causes this behaviour and whether it can be turned off? It happens with both my XT1's and I've tried my TT685N on the camera and it does the same.
 
Last edited:
gad-westy said:
How many XT owners have a an X100 of some description as well?

I had an X100 for years. I loved it but found it's pace frustrating. But it was a great companion to a heavy Nikon DSLR and had a very distinct purpose.

When my DSLR took a tumble last year, I swapped the X100 for an X100T while the insurance side of things was being sorted. I like the X100T, controls and responsiveness are much better than X100 but I've now had an X-T2 for about 6 weeks (replaced my dead DSLR) and the X100T isn't getting a look in. I guess this is partly because I'm in the honeymoon period with my X-T2, but I think it's also that the controls are similar enough that cameras feel familiar but actually they don't work quite the same way and it's really slowing me down when I pick up the X100T. It's not as intuitive as it once was.

So I'm pondering letting it go and picking up a cheap 27mm or 18mm prime for really travelling light with X-T2. Downsides that I can see, is that it still wouldn't be as portable as the X100t, the X100t is sexy! and the focal length isn't 23mm. I love 35mm equivalent and do have the 23mm 1.4. Wish they did a pancake version. The 23mm f/2 is too pointy to make it worthwhile changing for size alone. Or maybe I'll just stick the 35mm f/2 on if I just want to travel light. Don't know, but I'm very aware that the X100t is starting to become a pretty ornament.

Anybody else faced this dilemma? Think I'd regret letting the X100t go?
Click to expand...

Year before last I got an X100T to go with my Nikon D750, and whilst I really enjoyed the X100T(and had the TCL too), I needed more reach than those two lenses so sold it and got a Fuji XT1 instead. It's down to what and how you shoot I suppose.
 
Dave70D said:
Edited in LR6 PSE15 and finished in Topaz Studio.


Brighton Pier by Dave, on Flickr
Click to expand...


That’s a very nice Fujigraph Sir, good light & sky, some fine detail, and well handled exposure & presentation.(y)

George.
 
Dave70D said:
Edited in LR6 PSE15 and finished in Topaz Studio.


Brighton Pier by Dave, on Flickr
Click to expand...

I do like Brighton Pier, but there's something a bit odd about how Flickr is displaying this shot. Here in the thread it looks rather oversharpened to my taste, but if I follow the link to Flickr and click the enlarge button, the picture stays the same size but moves down the page, and the sharpening disappears! A bit odd... :-)
 
dave.hallett said:
I do like Brighton Pier, but there's something a bit odd about how Flickr is displaying this shot. Here in the thread it looks rather oversharpened to my taste, but if I follow the link to Flickr and click the enlarge button, the picture stays the same size but moves down the page, and the sharpening disappears! A bit odd... :)
Click to expand...

Thank you Dave for the comment. In Topaz Studio I clicked on the HDR :)
 
Dave70D said:
Thank you Dave for the comment. In Topaz Studio I clicked on the HDR :)
Click to expand...
Yes, I can see the HDR effect in the clouds :-) But the way the sharpening varies in Flickr is hard to understand, for me. Maybe it's just an awkward pixel size. If you want helpful critique, there's also a couple of pink bands in the sky that could probably be removed. I don't know whether they are lens flare from the sea reflecting the sun or something else. But I like the atmosphere of the shot anyway!
 
Over the weekend we went to the lake district in Cumbria UK. Took some photos of a pine woodland from the shore of buttermere lake. There were really cool reflections.

When uploaded via iridient the foliage of the pine trees was so washed out it looked pretty rubbish, not even zoomed in. This is the worst I've noticed and the sensor definitely struggles with pine tree foliage.

Checked the JPEG which are the same so suggest its written to the sensor that way rather than Lightroom issues.

Annoying as there is a lot of pine woodland in the northern lakes.

Anyone else got any woodland photos they can share to compare mine against?

I love using my x-t2 but it's disappointing the sensor seems to have some major flaws for landscape stuff.
 
dave.hallett said:
Yes, I can see the HDR effect in the clouds :) But the way the sharpening varies in Flickr is hard to understand, for me. Maybe it's just an awkward pixel size. If you want helpful critique, there's also a couple of pink bands in the sky that could probably be removed. I don't know whether they are lens flare from the sea reflecting the sun or something else. But I like the atmosphere of the shot anyway!
Click to expand...

Thank you Dave, and yes I do like getting helpful critique so thank you :)
 
benhben said:
Over the weekend we went to the lake district in Cumbria UK. Took some photos of a pine woodland from the shore of buttermere lake. There were really cool reflections.

When uploaded via iridient the foliage of the pine trees was so washed out it looked pretty rubbish, not even zoomed in. This is the worst I've noticed and the sensor definitely struggles with pine tree foliage.

Checked the JPEG which are the same so suggest its written to the sensor that way rather than Lightroom issues.

Annoying as there is a lot of pine woodland in the northern lakes.

Anyone else got any woodland photos they can share to compare mine against?

I love using my x-t2 but it's disappointing the sensor seems to have some major flaws for landscape stuff.
Click to expand...

To help with this, we really need to see an image and the EXIF data (camera settings), can you upload an image, or even make the RAW file available in a dropbox or similar account.
 
benhben said:
Over the weekend we went to the lake district in Cumbria UK. Took some photos of a pine woodland from the shore of buttermere lake. There were really cool reflections.

When uploaded via iridient the foliage of the pine trees was so washed out it looked pretty rubbish, not even zoomed in. This is the worst I've noticed and the sensor definitely struggles with pine tree foliage.

Checked the JPEG which are the same so suggest its written to the sensor that way rather than Lightroom issues.

Annoying as there is a lot of pine woodland in the northern lakes.

Anyone else got any woodland photos they can share to compare mine against?

I love using my x-t2 but it's disappointing the sensor seems to have some major flaws for landscape stuff.
Click to expand...
Would need to see, but sounds like the controversial fuji squigglies.

It's a symptom of x-trans sensors, sharpening, and fine patterns (like foliage), but only really a problem when pixel peeping.

You need to take a different approach to sharpening x-trans files, it's a much more softly softly approach as they're already pretty sharp. Typically, you want the detail slider set to 100 (not 99, 100. It behaves very differently at 100 and this is the key to avoiding squigglies). The other settings are subjective, but I tend to keep below 35-40 on the sharpening slider, 1.1-1.2 on the radius, and then mask accordingly (holding down alt while masking helps).
 
jimmyjamjojo said:
Would need to see, but sounds like the controversial fuji squigglies.

It's a symptom of x-trans sensors, sharpening, and fine patterns (like foliage), but only really a problem when pixel peeping.

You need to take a different approach to sharpening x-trans files, it's a much more softly softly approach as they're already pretty sharp. Typically, you want the detail slider set to 100 (not 99, 100. It behaves very differently at 100 and this is the key to avoiding squigglies). The other settings are subjective, but I tend to keep below 35-40 on the sharpening slider, 1.1-1.2 on the radius, and then mask accordingly (holding down alt while masking helps).
Click to expand...

Wouldn't be effecting the jpegs though? I wonder if it's just movement.
 
Could well be slight movement of camera or tree affecting the photos.

Do Pine trees or general foliage ever look that good on photos, also depends what fine detail you expect to see especially at distance.
 
tijuana taxi said:
Could well be slight movement of camera or tree affecting the photos.

Do Pine trees or general foliage ever look that good on photos, also depends what fine detail you expect to see especially at distance.
Click to expand...
Sometimes we expect to see finer detail in photographs than we could see with our naked eyes.
 
286991C5-3F1A-4B5C-9DAE-E9FF7070544A.jpeg 73FED1B3-0AA7-4E16-B9EA-FDC35CE1CFBB.jpeg 1E148F27-7C83-4C37-99F0-56B5D39D8CD6.jpeg Taken at South Lakes Safari Zoo. Using 55-200 on xt2. Very mild iPad edit. Monkey photograph taken through glass and leopard through mesh fence and B&W conversion.
 
Last edited:
rookies said:
Been there couple time but I believe it going get shut down again as they lost a lion due to wrong feed.
Click to expand...
There's a programme on the telly on Thursday about the zoo. They invited the cameras in to show how they had cleaned up their act, then they killed the lion while the film crews were in. Not the best PR stunt ever devised.
Here you are. 9PM on Thursday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09r8k2x
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top