- Messages
- 1,036
- Name
- Donna
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes. You can help the camera get accurate photos by changing a setting for the particular lens. On my X-E2 it's at Menu - 3 - Mount Adaptor Setting. Here's what you can change there:
MOUNT ADAPTOR SETTING
A website for FUJIFILM digital camera manuals. Learn how to use the FUJIFILM X-T10 X-series premium compact camera.fujifilm-dsc.com
Here it is Gary
sorry for poor quality shot on phone
I'm pretty sure that by doing this it has no effect whatsoever on the image recorded within the
I love the first one too and my favourite, but I also like the capture of smile and eye contact on the 2nd one.
Thankyou, he seemed quite interested in it too.I love the first one too and my favourite, but I also like the capture of smile and eye contact on the 2nd one.
I used the Peak Design Cuff for years and found it great tbh.Can anyone recommend a strap for an X100,
i know there are some about that are over £50 that are probably a joy to have
but i was think more like £20 - £35 but still very well made.
Can anyone recommend a strap for an X100,
i know there are some about that are over £50 that are probably a joy to have
but i was think more like £20 - £35 but still very well made.
I use a Cordweaver strap with Peak Design attachments when using my X-Pro2 and X-E2s with small primes. Lightweight, discreet and comfy. The Peak Design attachments mean I can swap for a Peak Design Cuff or Slide Lite as and when required.Can anyone recommend a strap for an X100,
i know there are some about that are over £50 that are probably a joy to have
but i was think more like £20 - £35 but still very well made.
This would make a fabulous album cover...!I drive past these crows every morning, and caught them when there was a great sunrise (and still made it to work on time). It reminds me of notes on a song sheet, but I wonder what the song is…
View attachment 342389
Not been out much with mine which has prompted a re-think on kit.
How does the 16-80 compare to the 16-55. I love the 16-55 but it can seem a bit heavy, especially if I have a few other bits in my camera bag! It also gives a longer range and would be a good walkabout camera (I often just take the X100F if want to travel light). That said the 16-55 is excellent, so much so that I then rarely use the 35mm.
Also, how are people finding the 70-300. Have the 55-200 which is great but only normally use occasionally (mainly airshows, so reach is all important) so thinking of swapping for that.
I always wonder about replacing my 18-55 and 55-200 with the 16-80 and 55-200 respectively. However, I worry that in both cases I would miss out on the wider aperture at the wide end. On the 55-200 particularly most of my shots are f3.5 @ 55mm.Not been out much with mine which has prompted a re-think on kit.
How does the 16-80 compare to the 16-55. I love the 16-55 but it can seem a bit heavy, especially if I have a few other bits in my camera bag! It also gives a longer range and would be a good walkabout camera (I often just take the X100F if want to travel light). That said the 16-55 is excellent, so much so that I then rarely use the 35mm.
Also, how are people finding the 70-300. Have the 55-200 which is great but only normally use occasionally (mainly airshows, so reach is all important) so thinking of swapping for that.
I always wonder about replacing my 18-55 and 55-200 with the 16-80 and 55-200 respectively. However, I worry that in both cases I would miss out on the wider aperture at the wide end. On the 55-200 particularly most of my shots are f3.5 @ 55mm.
I have both the 16-80 and 16-55. I wouldn’t replace the 16-55 for the more serious photography but I use the 16-80 occasionally when I need a general ‘walk-about’ lens. The 16-80 gives you f4 vs the f2.8 of the 16-55 fully open which, depending on the photography you do, may not matter. The 16-80 also has a reputation for being slightly soft at anything above 50mm. On mine it’s not all that noticeable but that may be due to copy variation.Not been out much with mine which has prompted a re-think on kit.
How does the 16-80 compare to the 16-55. I love the 16-55 but it can seem a bit heavy, especially if I have a few other bits in my camera bag! It also gives a longer range and would be a good walkabout camera (I often just take the X100F if want to travel light). That said the 16-55 is excellent, so much so that I then rarely use the 35mm.
Also, how are people finding the 70-300. Have the 55-200 which is great but only normally use occasionally (mainly airshows, so reach is all important) so thinking of swapping for that.
I presume you mean replacing the 55-200 with the 70-300. If so, the speed difference, in my view, is marginal. F3.5 vs f4.0 at the short end and f4.8 vs f5.6 on the long end but in my view the 70-300 is a better lens overall.I always wonder about replacing my 18-55 and 55-200 with the 16-80 and 55-200 respectively. However, I worry that in both cases I would miss out on the wider aperture at the wide end. On the 55-200 particularly most of my shots are f3.5 @ 55mm.
F3.5 vs f4.0 at the short end and f4.8 vs f5.6 on the long end
I have both the 16-80 and 16-55. I wouldn’t replace the 16-55 for the more serious photography but I use the 16-80 occasionally when I need a general ‘walk-about’ lens. The 16-80 gives you f4 vs the f2.8 of the 16-55 fully open which, depending on the photography you do, may not matter. The 16-80 also has a reputation for being slightly soft at anything above 50mm. On mine it’s not all that noticeable but that may be due to copy variation.
The 70-300 is an excellent lens, way better than my 55-200 but that may just be down to copy variation but overall people seem to rave more about the 70-300 than they did with the 55-200. The 70-300 is a marginally slower lens but it weighs the same as the 55-200, is only slightly longer when extended and is compatible with the Fujifilm teleconvertors. I sold my 55-200.
That's the thing - I used to love primes (and still do) but the IQ from the 16-55 is very hard to beat!
I presume you mean replacing the 55-200 with the 70-300. If so, the speed difference, in my view, is marginal. F3.5 vs f4.0 at the short end and f4.8 vs f5.6 on the long end but in my view the 70-300 is a better lens overall.
I have tried lots of 18-55‘s and although they are fine lenses, I’ve yet to find one that will beat the 16-80 over the same focal length range. The 16-80 is a bit slower than the 18-55 though (F2.8-f4 vs f4 only).